Evolution vs. Creation

[Adelheid]

I would like to know how many people here believe in either the evolution or creation view, and how many who don't know what to believe. I'm trying to post a poll in this thread, and as this the first time I'm doing it, I'm not sure if it comes out right, so bear with me this time, okay? :p

[Dyrwen]

You accept a theory as fact or your reject it as fact. Believing in something is about opinion, whereas acceptance of something is about knowledge.

I can believe that I can fly, but that doesn't make it true. I can reject the knowledge that tells me that I cannot fly and therefore still make my belief reasonable. If I accept the knowledge that I cannot fly but still believe I can fly anyway, I'm unreasonably believing in something.

Evolution is a fact that is explained by theory because that's how science works. Whether you accept or reject it is up to you. Creationism is a belief that is explained by the Bible alone. Whether you believe in it or not is also up to you. The point is: In evolution the evidence is put into data both physical and theoretical, which have been analyzed and made sense of for years over, constantly changing so as to be more accurate over time. In creationism the evidence is testimonial evidence displayed through the Bible which may or may not be the word of God. There's no "evidence" of creationism displayed in any manner, outside of attempts to disprove evolution. The entire creationist argument is centered 99% on disproving evolution, instead of proving its own "theory" of creationism because, as most might say, we're not meant to understand God's plan for creation. Or if you want to be blunt: 'I don't know, but I believe you're wrong anyway' mentality.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, based on my experience with how each side works. Evolutionary biologists almost never take creationism seriously for good reason: They've got evidence of their theory, whereas all creationism has sought to do is pop illogical and emotionally driven holes in evolution that have nothing to do with the theory itself. Personally speaking, the whole "vs" idea of evolution against creation is absurd because the argument comes down to Biblical truth as being capable of being interpretted as scientific truth or the dismissal of such truths as merely literature that is more philosophy than scientific fact.

A bit of a long-winded reply, but I do find it more succint to get the basics out of the way early. heh

[simon]

Evolution seems plausible, but how did evolution start, would that not need a creation of some kind?

[Dyrwen]

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It only has to do with how life evolved over time to become what it is today.

Biology and astronomy take over when it comes to how it all began. It all began with a "bang" (http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_10.htm) which eventually led to the creation of planets through elements getting together in clumps and once the heat cooled down at a certain point land was created, eventually gases created certain amounts of liquid, which was probably triggered by asteroids with ice on them. Eventually abiogenesis (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html) took place, wherein amino acids started the protein filled life of the first type of life, in simple bacteria, however this is considered somewhat improbable (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) by most, we don't know what the odds of life are outside of exactly 1, since we exist here now.. Over time, about 4.5 billion years, they evolved (http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm) into something more (http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusafarensis.htm) in different ways.

There's a run down of the basics, with sources, so you can pick up what you will and interpret it how you like in time. It all comes back to the big bang, when you say "creation", but that's a whole other discussion. This thread is supposed to be about evolution, which in my opinion, is pretty damned factual and researched.

[Scheherazade]

Ditto.
Out of sheer curiousity, Dyrwen, why aren't you voting in the poll if you have such strong opinions on the subject?

[Dyrwen]

Because it's just a poll and my position is already pretty clear as it is. I like to think of it as educating a voting populous, or something. I could also say that I'm perhaps not voting so that if by some stretch of the imagination I'm proven incorrect in all that I know is correct, I'll be able to vote my opinion on the matter accurately then. heh

I don't know, guess I'm more stubborn than anything. Personally I don't see creationism as much of a choice when it comes to "versus" evolution, since it isn't even in the same league. One is about the creation of everything, the other is about the evolution of life after it existed. They've nothing to do with eachother, outside of the fact that creationists seem to enjoy proding at evolution because it is somehow a threat to their beliefs when it doesn't even involve the origin of life until one continues asking the "why" question throughout about science.

Hopefully that made some sense. I'll vote if it'll please the court, heh, but it just feels a little better to explain myself adequately than be another number in the poll pigeonholled in a position.

[Scheherazade]

*checks the poll results*
huh-uh...
I find it interesting that many of us on here will talk and discuss things till subjects are exhausted and more but will not commit ourselves into certain things... Won't answer a simple 'yes/no' question at times. ;)

[Stanislaw]

I think there should be a bit of column a and b response.

[amuse]

i believe in both theories. like creation already happening, and evolution catching up to it, if that makes sense. :confused: ok that sounds strange, lol. but there isn't a both category. ;)

[Stanislaw]

Yeah creationism is primarily my belief, but I believe that perhaps evolution was a tool, and the Bibal does not really contradict the evolutionist theory...

so in brief: God did it!

[Jester]

hmm.... I've seen too much evidence to believe that humans were created around six thousand years ago and a great flood around four thousand years ago.

I once had this discussion with a freind of mine who ended up giveing me these videos of this evengalist preacher citing sources for eveidence in creation... his first problem was that he assumed that humans evolved from rocks and are in some ways related to alligators... the only way we are is that we both breathe oxygen and we have the same four base paris in our DNA... Other of his theories, I could find flaws in them at only tenth grade but people none the less listen to it. I would not be surprised to learn that Adam and Eve were real humans once upon a time and that they once lived in a garden and were then banished from it to live admist all the others human... (but thats just me saying that anything is possible but I for one acknowledge evolution as a fact)

The diests believe that god created the universe and then let it run on its own, this would give rise to both creation (a little) and evolution... scientists have actually recreated the atmoshpere and the conditions which they believed inhabited early earth and with sparks of electricity created the most minor forms of single celled base organisms (this experiment, i do not know the details of, forgotten it but know it has been done) and there are mitochondria and chloroplast DNA which seems to indicate that these seperate cell organnelles fused withother organelles to create cells liek we have them today. What I have said here is just the basis of a long list of cellular, molecular, theoretical, and many other forms of evolution.

[subterranean]

I haven't decide my stand on this issue.

[Stanislaw]

jester is correct, scientist have reproduced some of the conditions...but this doesn't leed to an anti creationist theory. Now if we say that the bibal is a metaphor, or parable, to explain ideas to people, people of old would not be able to comprehend ideas of evolution etc. Now in the Bibal it states that Adam was created out of the earth, God used the Earth to build Adam, now it is concievable that clay in early earth was an important factor in the scientific origins of life. the clay acts as a sponge inwhich to hold all of the needed 'ingriediants' together. Now it also sais that Eve came from Adam, ie, single cell division. So in conclusion the Bibal does not really dispute evolutionist theories.

[Adelheid]

Well, then, are you trying to say that if I left a tub of water, for example as it was, that I would get a fish/ shark etc. in it if I wait for billions of years??! Sounds pretty incredible if you ask me. :brow: Everything wouldn't be able to fit together nicely as it is now, if there was no God who made it, isn't it?

And, if you look at it this way, the Bible, (which I know is the Word of God) has so many prophecies that have clearly been fulfilled so far- every single one of them. Wouldn't creation (God making everything for HIS sole pleasure) be true too? Considering, if you DO bother to look, there are heapsss of evidence to show that it did?

By the way, science cannot PROVE anything. The only limitations of science are that it cannot prove anything, is NOT 100% reliable, and must conform to a scientific method. A scientist may come up with a theory, that "explains" evolution, while in the next moment, another scientist might come up with a counter-example, that contradicted the scientific experiment. Of course, we CAN use science to observe, and thus form conclusions, but what I'm trying to say is that even science is NOT 100% reliable, so it doesn't PROVE anything.

[Adelheid]

In reply to Stanislaw, I found a commentary by Adam Clarke which you might like to read: (it's for Genesis 2:7)

"Gen 2:7 -
God formed man of the dust - In the most distinct manner God shows us that man is a compound being, having a body and soul distinctly, and separately created; the body out of the dust of the earth, the soul immediately breathed from God himself. Does not this strongly mark that the soul and body are not the same thing? The body derives its origin from the earth, or as עפר aphar implies, the dust; hence because it is earthly it is decomposable and perishable. Of the soul it is said, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; נשמת חיים nishmath chaiyim, the breath of Lives, i.e., animal and intellectual. While this breath of God expanded the lungs and set them in play, his inspiration gave both spirit and understanding."
-E-Sword v.6.5.0

The english Bible as we have it today was translated from either Aramic or Hebrew (for the old testament) for the new, it was Greek. If you study the languages, and do a word study on the word, the exact meaning of the word in either Aramic or Hebrew, could most probably not be phrased into english. (It's a bit like that for the New testament/Greek, so mightn't it be so also for the old testament?)

Also, about the time period? God did fashion man out of the dust of the earth, but what of the time issue? According to evolution, wouldn't it need to take ages? And God formed Adam in one day- day 6. Th Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything that was in it in 6 days. And, after EVERY single day, God said that His creation was good. Consider, that if man had formed slowly over a period of time, it wouldn't have been so good, isn't it?

[Taliesin]

Consider, that if man had formed slowly over a period of time, it wouldn't have been so good, isn't it?

We really would like to you to explain. Why do you think that things done in in shorter time are better?

[Dyrwen]

Well, then, are you trying to say that if I left a tub of water, for example as it was, that I would get a fish/ shark etc. in it if I wait for billions of years??!
Technically speaking, it took a few billion years just to get microorganisms to evolve from the primordial soup, but once they were out there, everything else was able to come about later on. So if you want a straight answer, which I know you do, you won't get a shark or fish. You might get some microorganisms, eventually some sort of underwater creature which may or may not look like a fish depending on what you put in the water. It certainly would be a new species entirely, since there wouldn't be any reproduction going on with anything else beforehand.

If you really want to understand how life began that way, I suggest reading this (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml) lovely little explanation called "From Soup to Cells" by the Berkeley science department. It's quite expansive and gives you all the evidence of theory that you need.


Sounds pretty incredible if you ask me. :brow: Everything wouldn't be able to fit together nicely as it is now, if there was no God who made it, isn't it?
First off, that sentence was barely intelligible. Secondly, there's a lot of evidence right now that this world didn't need some God making it to become as complex as it is. Furthermore, if you're going to go into the theology realm, I can always just ask "What made God?" seeing as he's pretty complex, too. Of course, I'm pretty sure I know what your response to that will be, seeing as it doesn't take a genius to use circular logic.


And, if you look at it this way, the Bible, (which I know is the Word of God) has so many prophecies that have clearly been fulfilled so far- every single one of them. Wouldn't creation (God making everything for HIS sole pleasure) be true too? Considering, if you DO bother to look, there are heapsss of evidence to show that it did?
I'm not getting into a Biblical debate with you because it isn't my peroggative and there are plenty of others who do that for a living, but as far as your prophecy stuff goes, I'd say that they haven't been fulfilled and have been past due for quite some time. But whatever, I'm not here to fight Bible scripture with you, though a friend of mine (http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/) took some time once to delve into the matter.

I've looked around and have been for the past 4-5 years for evidence of God, or at least something half-assedly true about creationism. Hell, the flood alone is proven false by how sedimentary rocks work in the grand canyon. There's already fossil evidence of dinosaurs, billion year old bacteria, hominids evolving over time in various ways (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/). Tell you what, I've been looking around for years and haven't found any evidence, perhaps you'd be kind enough to display some of it so that I might be proven wrong or at least can analyze it myself? That's not too much to ask I hope.


By the way, science cannot PROVE anything. The only limitations of science are that it cannot prove anything, is NOT 100% reliable, and must conform to a scientific method. A scientist may come up with a theory, that "explains" evolution, while in the next moment, another scientist might come up with a counter-example, that contradicted the scientific experiment. Of course, we CAN use science to observe, and thus form conclusions, but what I'm trying to say is that even science is NOT 100% reliable, so it doesn't PROVE anything.
Nothing is provable (seeing as we might not even exist and could be in a dream world without knowing it, etc), but I follow that which is possible beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence for evolution is strikingly overwhelming and the lack of evidence of any gods is as such as well, considering I do not believe the Bible is anything but literature.

I never said science can prove evolution is correct, but I did say that it is pretty well documented that it occurs and the evidence shows it so well that a good deal of the world accepts it as fact. 55% of scientists (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) believe that man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life and God had no part in the process. Also, 97% of the world doesn't believe that the Earth was created in six days purely because the evidence suggests 4.5 billion years ago is much more reasonable a time, even if there was a God involved.

The point is: Evolution has a lot of documented evidence for it, much more than the contrary evidence, and is therefore regarded as factual theory more so than just some humdrum explanation for the way things are. Show some evidence of creationism not directly quoted from the Bible and maybe you'll make more of a case for it.

[Stanislaw]

Also, about the time period? God did fashion man out of the dust of the earth, but what of the time issue? According to evolution, wouldn't it need to take ages? And God formed Adam in one day- day 6. Th Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything that was in it in 6 days. And, after EVERY single day, God said that His creation was good. Consider, that if man had formed slowly over a period of time, it wouldn't have been so good, isn't it?

It is perhaps a figurative way to describe the events, another metaphor that must be examined and contemplated to reveal the truth.
There are also less 'scientific' theories for the concept of evolution, such as Only God is perfect enough to creat a person directly, and that Evolution was the work of Satan. Now that could explain why there were other groups on the earth when Adam and Eve arrived.

[Monica]

At our religion classes (how to call in English such a subject? If trsanslated directly from Polish it's religion, but I don't really know if it's correct) our priest always told us that creation and evolution don't exclude each other because science and religion belong to a different category. Like in Thomas Aquinas: the difference between faith and knowledge.

[Dyrwen]

Indeed Monica, you're quite correct.

Faith is of a category of beliefs. Knowledge is of a category of sciences. Science means, from Latin at least, "having knowledge". Faith comes from the Latin of, "to trust". So in simple definitive terms, one can quite easily follow both. Science is about the systematic organization of knowledge in evolution's case, but creationism is more a matter of faith in the Bible, that is, unless there's scientific evidence out there to back up creationism, in which case it'd get to play ball alongside the sciences instead of just the religious studies.

[Jester]

Dyrwen, several posts back you said exactly what i was going to say, thanks, couldn't have said it better....

About the bath tub thing though, a couple of ver specific elements are needed like phosphuros and then electricity is needed,

stan i could see where you were going with the eve from adam thing, but eve was created from adam's rib, and at that point in time when the bible was written down, as it was written down, they would have no knowledge of these things (unless God filled thier head with doctorates that spent lifetimes trying to achieve their knowledge and a couple thousand years to get as far as they did) then metaphors as good as they sound, just don't seem plausible enough...

Adelhied, I'd like you to know that you may "KNOW" that GOd's word is in the bible, but many scientist out there KNOW that something else is going on besides God and htye feel the same way about science as you do about GOD

as Dyrwen said, nothing is can be prooven to a hundred percent becuase we rely on our senses to acknowledge reality therefore we may think we know something and it oculd be a lie... (think Matrix, that movie freaked me out becuase it brought rise to the fact that that could be our world, and we aren't really alive!)

[baddad]

My feelings on spirituality have been expressed here before, so this particular post may seem a little........different....or maybe just irrational......

Evolution does not neccessarily preclude a God. A god does not neccessarily preclude evolution.

[amuse]

:) i like how you put that - i just figured god created both.

[mono]

Evolution does not neccessarily preclude a God. A god does not neccessarily preclude evolution.

i like how you put that - i just figured god created both.
I could not have explained my opinion better, nor in less words.

[amuse]

Also, about the time period? God did fashion man out of the dust of the earth, but what of the time issue? According to evolution, wouldn't it need to take ages? And God formed Adam in one day- day 6. Th Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything that was in it in 6 days. And, after EVERY single day, God said that His creation was good. Consider, that if man had formed slowly over a period of time, it wouldn't have been so good, isn't it?
first of all, i'm not a christian, but i have read a lot of stuff re: the bible, like in my late teens, and "day" is actually kind of ambiguous. who's to say that god's days are in the same time frame as those here on planet: earth, galaxy: milky way? ;) it really depends how you look at "time" to decide what's "good" and what isn't.

[Stanislaw]

The Babylonian Enuma Elish (http://www.cresourcei.org/enumaelish.html) offers an interesting take on religious thoughts, it almost follows an evolutionary aproach.

it is worth skimming through!

[Adelheid]

At our religion classes (how to call in English such a subject? If trsanslated directly from Polish it's religion, but I don't really know if it's correct) our priest always told us that creation and evolution don't exclude each other because science and religion belong to a different category. Like in Thomas Aquinas: the difference between faith and knowledge.

Shouldn't Science be supporting your faith? If Creation or evolution for that matter really DID happen, shouldn't there be scientific evidence?

[Adelheid]

We really would like to you to explain. Why do you think that things done in in shorter time are better?


I'm sorry, I should have explained myself a little bit better. :D What I was trying to say is that man (or creation for that matter) was created in six days. At the end of every day God always said it was good. If it did take that long to create a man, plant or animal, (millions or billions of years) the creation wouldn't have been even half completed in a day! Thus it wouldn't quite have been perfect yet, would it? That's what I meant, I think. :D

[Molko]

Hmm...I do believe in God and I believe that God created the universe, but I also believe in the theory of evolution. I dont take the bible's story of creation literally, i.e. the world etc. was made in 6 days. As the bible has been translated from numerous languages (aramaic to greek to engish) and sometimes there is no equivalent meaning for a specific word, perhaps the word days could have really meant a long period of time (say, a thousand years). Usually, words can get lost or changed in translation. Sorry, I dont know if I properly articulated what I wanted to say :)

[Adelheid]

That's alright, I understand you. :D I too sometimes find it hard to express myself properly, unlike some people. Anyway, just out from curiousity, I think, why wouldn't you take the Bible literally? I know that somewhere in the Bible it did say that a thousand years is as one day to God, as one day is as a thousand years to God. But obviously, Moses he writer of the book of Genesis could have only gotten the creation information from God. He was a close man with God. Wouldn't God have passed the truth to Moses? So that WE could understand it? Sometimes I think that the problem is that we try to figure things out too much. The truth might be infront of us! :D Sorry, on offense- it happens to everybody, isn't it?

Anyway, going back to the point, God would have given Moses the truth to record, as the Bible says it is impossible for God to lie. That's the only inpossible thing that God can't do. So, anyhow, that was the point I was trying to make hope u understand me too! :D

[Molko]

Yes, it is impossible for God to lie. God in essence is a perfect being, and hence cannot make a mistake and therefore lie. However, you do have to take into account the fact that the bible has been translated into many different languages and often words get lost in translation. Man is not perfect and has the propensity to error...so, how do you know that a 'mistake' or poor translation of texts didnt occur while the bible was made and translated? The first testament was translated from the Hewbrew to the Greek, then to the English. In my view (and i appologise in advance if this causes any offence, because i dont intend to offend any one) you can only take something to be the literal word of God if what was said remains unchanged. Because of translation, the essence of what was said remains the same, but it wont be literally word for word with the original.

[Adelheid]

That is very true, and I agree with you heartily. I myself studied that for some of the greek words or Aramic or hebrew in the case of the old testament, there may not be an exact word in English to replace it. That is why (and this I also learnt) that we should go back to the original language and dig deeper into the meaning of the passage that you wish to find out more about. I have done this for the new testament, and the result I got was so different from what you would normally understand from just reading the verse in plain English. Take for example the verse in Matthew- one of Jesus' sayings, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall ingerit the Kingdom of God." Well, you would imagine that Jesus was saying about those who give in easily, timid, etc. That is what the wourd meek means in the dictionary. However, this is not what Jesus actually meant!! The word in Greek which was poorly substituted for meek actually meant one with a strong will, but who yields his/her rights! Now, who would have thought of that! I certainly didn't!!! :-) But then look at Moses as an example he was not what you would call a meek man- after all he murdered an Egyptian out from anger (which shows he has to be strong in the first place!), and also out from anger struck a rock to which he was supposed to speak to. But God called Him a meek man, because he managed to control the strength of His anger or rights or whatever. I do hope you get me. :nod:

[baddad]

...Yeah, but I think the key word here is 'interpretation'. We can all read the same book and yet each of us reaches a different 'interpretation'. I think the idea of any religious tome is to give a general direction of the intent, but to interpret any Rel. text literally is at best dangerous. The world has moved on in many ways, and one would think a 'God' would have understood the concept of time and delivered his message in a general thesis that would therefore be timeless in texture..........

[Adelheid]

The TRUTH is everlasting. It is timeless. Whatever God wrote is the truth. God is truth...

[Miss Darcy]

God is truth...I like that. It sounds good. But what are you referring to God writing? Surely not the Bible, that was written by men as an interpretation of his message...

[Adelheid]

Well, Let's just put it as God used men to write the Bible for Him. In reality though, the work was God's. He gave them the words to put down, inspired them, gave them visions, in which He told them what to write, and what not to write (the book Revelation). Look at the gospels. Out of all these books, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, only Luke had a proper education. We know he is a doctor. The rest were fishermen! Fishermen do not have and education. So, really, the Bible is the work of God, put together by God. The ending is perfect. He wrote the last book Himself, really, because He told His disciple John exactly what to write. See how He ends:

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things to you for the assemblies. I am the root and the offspring of David; the Bright and Morning Star." The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" He who hears, let him say, "Come!" He who is thirsty, let him come. He who desires, let him take the water of life freely. I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, may God add to him the plagues which are written in this book. If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book. He who testifies these things says, "Yes, I come quickly." Amen! Yes, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with all the saints. Amen." Revelation 22:16-21

For some Bibles, they use the colour Red to highlight the Words which Jesus said.

[Miss Darcy]

Used men? I'm sorry, but how? And why? Why use men, why not simply do it himself, or better still, why not ingrain it into every human's brain so there would be no need for any religious texts? Then there would be no need for Hell, or not for the atheists at any rate.

But there are obvious discrepancies in the Bible and all those texts, if God didn't mean to trick us by having them written, of course. The age of the world by the Bible is some thousands of years. But in actuality the world is over 4 BILLION years old.

And so God created the world....but he didn't, the Earth was created in just the same way as every other planet in the Universe. When the Sun was young, the leftovers from its (purely scientific) making spiralled around it, and clustered together to become the planets. The leftovers that didn't become planets became asteroids and planetoids.

Ah, also Adam and Eve, though I know this is the wrong board, there *were* what we call "mitochondrial Adam and Eve." We are all related; we share the same 10 000th great grandmother. She lived some 150 000 years ago (before the world was created, according to the Bible). As to Adam, he never even met Eve - they lived 85, 000 years apart. They weren't even the first couple, there were many other people around their time (though they didn't even share that time). These two are simply our common ancestors, the other lot were mixed in as well. For more info, go to BBC - Science and Genes - Adam & Eve (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/dna_detectives/adam_and_eve/index.shtml) or simply Google "Mitochondrial Adam and Eve".

What proof have we for the existence of Jesus? And who is Jesus in relation to God? Not his son; or how could Mary be a virgin? In any case, you can't have a kid without sacrificing virginity, or at least, I think there wasn't much IVF during their time. ;)

I remember when I was little, I stopped believing in Santa Claus and fairies and stuff like that very early, at about six or seven, and one Christmas I was staying at my relatives' place. I was talking to my cousin, who was about six years or so older than me, and was completely shocked that she still believed in Santa Claus. She also believed/s in God, which I also could not understand.

But back to the subject: do you believe in evolution+creation or just creation?

Anyway, must be off! :)

Miss Darcy

P.S. (Though this certainly should not be in the P.S.) I never saw the use of praying. Things are the way they're meant to be, even if there was a god. But if there was a use to praying, does he hear it? I mean, come on, some secret whispering is never gonna go far. If you want him to hear you, you have to go outside and YELL. Am I not correct?

[Adelheid]

Dear Miss Darcy,

First off, I must say that God's ways are higher, and deeper than our ways. I will not pretend to know everything. But I will try to answer some of the questions you ask the best I can, okay?

You asked "Used men? I'm sorry, but how? And why? Why use men, why not simply do it himself, or better still, why not ingrain it into every human's brain so there would be no need for any religious texts? Then there would be no need for Hell, or not for the atheists at any rate." God made man each with their own will. He wanted them to make their own decisions, to be able to decide for themselves. That is why no one can force you to do anything beyond your own will. Remember, the Bible says that we were made in the image of God. (However, that does not mean that we are God.)

The second thing you mentioned was about the age of the world. Since no man was there at the "beginning" of the world, to see how it created, why not trust God who was there? He is omnipresent and omniscient. He was always there. Our human mind cannot fathom it. We weren't made with the capacity to know everything. Only God knows everything, that's why He is God. We only know a tiniest fraction of what God chooses to reveal to us. Even the most learned men know nowhere near one tenth of everything. That being so, how would you know that the world is 4 billion years old? Science is basically the "instrument" used to observe things. Whatever it says cannot be totally right. However, we do know that God NEVER lies. The Bible is the inspired word of God, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instuction unto righteousness. Since God is truth, we know that His word, whatever He says is true too. Why should He lie about the age of the world? It is because men choose (out of their own free will that God gave them), to disregard the truth, that they find out various other means of explaining the things that was already stated as the truth. Of course, men can't ignore the world around us, that God made, so they would come out with theories such as evolution, and would try to use science to back up their hypothesis. Of course, some part of science might seem to back it up, but obviously, that won't hold up.

You ask what proof we have of Jesus. We have the "proof" of the eye-witnesses who wrote part of the Bible- Jesus Disciples. Think about it now, would a group of barely known, uneducated fishermen gang up with a doctor to come up with such a story : a man who came down into the world as a baby, called the Son of God? What would you then say about the miracles?

Also, the Bible says nothing is too hard for God. We will never understand about the virgin birth of our Lord, until God chooses to reveal it to us.

I never believed in Santa Claus, simply because there isn't one, and again, men used that to try and erase the timeless story of the birth of Christ. Christmas isn't about Santa Claus, it's about the birth of Jesus. Just as easter isn't about bunnies or easter eggs, its to remember the day when Jesus rose from the dead, and conquered death.

As to what I believe, I believe that every word of God is true and pure, that it is the Word of God. That it is the Truth. Therefore, nothing false could be found in it. So, I believe that God and God only created the world in 6 human days. And that the world is only thousands of years old. About 6-7 thousand, I think.

God hears all our prayers. Why don't you try? Sometimes, though, if GOd doesn't want us to have the particular thing we pray for He won't give it, because it's not good for us. God, in His love and mercy, wouldn't give His children bad things. There's this verse in the Bible that says something like this:

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" Matthew 7:8-11

Or, if He says, "wait." THen of course the request won't come immediately. But whatever God does is for your good. It may seem like evil, but God meant it for Good. Ever readthe story of Joseph and His brothers? If not, it's a good story of how Joseph'd brother's meant him harm, but God used the situation to the whole nation's good. It's found in Genesis 37-50 (exclude chapter 38 if you don't want to read that.)

But thank you for all your questions. They are all straightforward, and I know you mean every single one of them. I tried to give you some of the answers. But if you want to know more, I would suggest getting a copy of the Bible.

P.S. Whew! This is probably the longest reply I've ever written! I hope you weren't tired of me! :D

[Miss Darcy]

Dear Adelheid,

No, surprisingly for me, especially considering the topic, I honestly didn't get tired of your reply. It was rather *checks herself* interesting. :) (To be frank, I was going to say "amusing", but then you see it's not all amusing and I also realised that would sound pretty mean. So I apologise for almost saying that...)

I'll do my best to answer your answers without offending you (and trust I will succeed; trust in my headstrong, atheist way ;) ).


God made man each with their own will. He wanted them to make their own decisions, to be able to decide for themselves. That is why no one can force you to do anything beyond your own will.

They all say that, but I always wondered - why? (Possibly the most wondered question in philosophy) Why would a god LET THEM go to Hell, as a consequence of these free wills, that he himself gave them, and he himself (indirectly at least) shaped and cultivated? You surely must agree that man is only a product of his environment, and it is this environment which determines whether he is "good" or "evil", honest or dishonest. It also determines if he is stubborn, or yielding. The stubborn - off they go to Hell, at least in this particular case. (They can't help being stubborn, though, they are merely brought up to it.) The yielding - take up God and pray and believe, go to Heaven, and enjoy the wonders of afterlife.

I'm headed to Hell beyond return. But I don't really worry about it, firstly, I don't believe it exists, I believe all human suffering that is necessary to make humans better and cure them of vice occurs here on solid earth, and secondly, I believe that even if it DID exist, it wouldn't be half as bad as religion makes it sound. God must have put it in that way to scare people into being good, obedient little lambs. But in reality it would be - well you see I have QUITE a different picture of Hell. It's mostly shaped by Czech fairy tales (filmed versions, real people, very good, enjoyable movies, and though mostly intended for children not babyish!). You see, they usually don't involve God (Z Pekla Stesti 2 is a rare example...hehe God and Satan are played by the same actor!) but they sometimes do the Devil (I refrain from calling him Satan as - well - the Devil is a lot nicer). The Czech version of Hell is a whole lot of devils with one ultimate leader (er...Satan...). They are not always bad. They cure the world of bad people. They cure the bad people of their badness. And the devils are very clever - devils - and they're actually very nice, apart from wanting to get a few blood signatures in exchange for, say, gold, etc. You can get out of the pact with the devil if he doesn't give you three wishes and make them happen. Well, this is off topic, but never mind. It's basically a hot, red, hollow cave-place underground, with a lot of fire, and pots where they boil the naughty souls. :D Hehe, I love Hell. Sorry. I really do. I think devils in general would make much better company than those stuck-up archangels in Heaven. That's me, personally, anyway. They have such a good sense of humour. Sometimes you get a chance before you get put into pots, and if the devil sees you're actually a good person (good persons in Hell? I ask you! But this is the Christian God view, mixed up with MY view of Hell), or an amusing person, you can make friends with him. *Smiles angelically* I think Hell would be a lot more fun than Heaven would.

Secondly, I wouldn't believe too inherently in all the doctrines, even if I was Christian. You can't believe them, I mean, on what grounds can you be sure it's really God-inspired, and not (forgive me), merely a joke a few guys put together ages ago to see who would be insane enough to believe in it. Exaggeration, but you get my drift. Think for yourself. Reason!

Why would God make the world in 7 (did you say 6?) days anyway. He couldn't, there's too much stuff for making it in seven days. On the other hand, if he's so powerful why would he not simply make it all in one day. And by "the world" are we speaking of planet Earth? If so, I repeat, that was made along with the other planets, and not for any specific purpose; if we're speaking of the spiritual world, well, maybe. But the solid world was certainly not made by a metaphysical entity. If we're speaking of the Earth - then by what are we measuring days? Because, as you know, a day is one complete rotation of the Earth - how can you measure time in days before the Earth was even created?

And we have EVIDENCE, yes, evidence, of creatures who lived millions of years ago; this is proof, not faith. Science, yes, only measures, only observes, and puts things together using measurement, observation, and reasoning. But there is at least grounds for belief, not simply books, but actual fossils. And it also makes sense!

The riddle of Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

(So it's not just me asking these questions)

And there's a quote:


I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -Stephen Roberts.

Which comes across to me as very funny and very true. There are many quotes, we could be quoting forever, you the Bible and Genesis, me various atheists, scientists and spiritual leaders from around the world, but well, let's stick to our own opinions as much as we can. But just this once, do you mind if I...:D...thanks.


If God made the Earth, then why do we want to go to heaven?

-Which I also think is a pretty clever argument. Yep. We atheists sure are clever devils. ;)


"It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get incinerated by lighting bolts" - Calvin & Hobbes

Hehe, I like this one, makes me chuckle. This is why I ask if God can hear you when you pray. And is he almighty? What has he done to prove he exists?


We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. - Isaac Bickerstaff

(Fine, fine, that's Jonathan Swift's pseudonym. You know, there was this guy who wrote almanacs during the time he was alive, and challenged people to make predictions as good as his [the guy's]. Well, Jonathan said that [on a certain date, at a certain hour] the guy would die of fever; later, he published his "triumphant results". The other guy loudly argued back that he was still alive, but no one believed him, because his name was already on the Death Register. He got over it, after a while: at least he didn't have to pay his taxes. :D)


Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps. Proverbs 14:15


There is no god greater than truth. -Mahatma Gandhi


I am an atheist, thank God. (Also known as Thank God I'm an atheist. Cool oxymoron, very applicable.) - Luois Bunuel, French film-maker


For God showed us His own love in this: While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

"While we were yet sinners"? Great God! Then what d'you suppose we are now!!!


Jesus said:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35 (AV)

I find that really, and I mean REALLY, scary.


The Fig Tree Enigma

The next day..., Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." ... In the morning..., they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter ... said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree ... has withered!"
-- Mark 11:12-14, 20-21 (NIV)


Points to remember

Jesus was hungry.
He looked for figs on a tree.
But it was not fig season.

Questions to ponder

If it wasn't fig season, why would even a moron look for figs?

Is killing a tree for not bearing fruit out of season a reasonable response by any standard?

Matthew 21:18-21 (written after and based upon Mark) says it withered at once. Mark says they saw it the next day and then marveled. Something's terribly wrong, here. Was Matthew possibly dissatisfied with a Jesus who'd take an entire day to wither a damned fig tree?
-- commentary by Cliff Walker

*Chuckles to herself at this one*

Well, there's a myriad more, but I think I've bored you (and amused myself) quite enough for the present moment. ;)

We could be arguing forever about this....:D
But it's fun. I'll get the Devil to install a Windows XP on his computer when I'm in Hell, then if you can manage to persuade God to do the same thing in Heaven, we can continue arguing into infinity. :D

Very respectfully,

Miss Darcy
(Feeling rather cheeky at this very moment; please forgive me. But do answer my question about if God is almighty. I'm very curious as to your answer.)

[subterranean]

Posted by Darcy: surely must agree that man is only a product of his environment, and it is this environment which determines whether he is "good" or "evil", honest or dishonest.

Then why they were some monks/preacher/priest/other religious leaders/ who spend most of their lives at ceminary/temple/other religious places, become child molesters? I read often about this; A priest sodomized a little boy, A teacher in Islamic bording school molested his student




Posted by Darcy: Secondly, I wouldn't believe too inherently in all the doctrines, even if I was Christian. You can't believe them, I mean, on what grounds can you be sure it's really God-inspired, and not (forgive me), merely a joke a few guys put together ages ago to see who would be insane enough to believe in it. Exaggeration, but you get my drift. Think for yourself. Reason!


If you don't believe in the doctrines/teachings/the bible, then you wouldn't call yourself a Christian



Posted by Darcy: Why would God make the world in 7 (did you say 6?) days anyway. He couldn't, there's too much stuff for making it in seven days.

Please do not (always) take those words written in "holy" texts literary. Further, there's a verse in Bible which said that God's time is not the same as man's. I'm not defending the Bible since I don't have any interest for that, but IMO never took these kind of scriptures literary.

[Miss Darcy]

Then why they were some monks/preacher/priest/other religious leaders/ who spend most of their lives at ceminary/temple/other religious places, become child molesters? I read often about this; A priest sodomized a little boy, A teacher in Islamic bording school molested his student.

Well don't ask me. I know they're pretty crazy sometimes.



If you don't believe in the doctrines/teachings/the bible, then you wouldn't call yourself a Christian

I certainly don't. I'm an atheist! *Chuckles*


Please do not (always) take those words written in "holy" texts literary. Further, there's a verse in Bible which said that God's time is not the same as man's. I'm not defending the Bible since I don't have any interest for that, but IMO never took these kind of scriptures literary.

I don't believe a word of it, certainly don't take them literally! But you see, Christians might, and that's where the problems start...

Check out my "10 commandments" post if you're not very Christian. I just hope it won't be reported as a "bad post"; there was a bit in it (quoting the 10 commandments) which had a word now deemed...blasphemous. ;)

Anyway.

Miss Darcy

[subterranean]

Well don't ask me. I know they're pretty crazy sometimes.

Well I wanted to ask you since you were the one who gave that comment. Please refer to your words that I quoted.





I certainly don't. I'm an atheist! *Chuckles*

I was reffering to your words : "....even if I was Christian. You can't believe them, I mean, on what grounds can you be sure it's really God-inspired..."

If you don't believe them, why would you need to say "even if I was Christian..."



I don't believe a word of it, certainly don't take them literally! But you see, Christians might, and that's where the problems start...


Say, when you read novels/poems, do you always take the words in those novel/poems literally?
Holy texts are like that, no matter you believe them to be true or not...

[Miss Darcy]

*Chuckles to herself* I'm in love with Mark Twain. I don't know if I should quote him or not here, but if you'd like to hear it, it's very amusing. Note that this is Mark Twain's view and not mine. :D


Please refer to your words that I quoted.

...surely must agree that man is only a product of his environment, and it is this environment which determines whether he is "good" or "evil", honest or dishonest.

Then why they were some monks/preacher/priest/other religious leaders/ who spend most of their lives at ceminary/temple/other religious places, become child molesters?[/QUOTE]

I think it's a backfire of that environment. You know, all this angelicity (new word;)), and sort of....repressed badness...Also, they might have had a violent childhood? *Shrugs* But I wasn't talking about religious people...just people in general.


I was reffering to your words : "....even if I was Christian. You can't believe them, I mean, on what grounds can you be sure it's really God-inspired..."

If you don't believe them, why would you need to say "even if I was Christian..."

I merely meant to imply that, being something of a nonconformist, even if I was Christian, I'm sure I wouldn't believe the accepted doctrines. I think, knowing myself, I'd make up my own story about God, I'd make God female, for one ;), and also fit it together with my understanding of the Universe. So it would almost be a different religion - I suppose I couldn't call myself Christian, in this case, anyway.


Say, when you read novels/poems, do you always take the words in those novel/poems literally?
Holy texts are like that, no matter you believe them to be true or not...

Not if they're hyperbole or metaphor or figurative. But you see, apparently the Holy Texts are "the Word of God" and everything inside them is true - not figurative, not hyperbole, not metaphor, just simple truth. Am I right?

This is interesting....

Miss Darcy

[Molko]

I know that a lot of people believe in the big bang theory, but if you think about it, what started the big bang? Matter cannot just combust by itself. Furthermore, where did that matter come from? It cannot appear by itself from no where....

[Miss Darcy]

I see you have not heard the Big Crunch theory. This explains the presence of the matter that exploded in the first place.

We all know (I hope) that the universe is expanding. Expanding at an ever-increasing rate. Scientists are not sure if there is enough dark matter (for there is certainly not enough matter in itself...From memory, the bulk of the galaxies consists of only 30% of the universe's matter...) to stop the universe from expanding forever.

If the universe continues expanding forever, then that is the "Blackout" (or that's my dubbing, anyway) theory; the galaxies will drift further and further apart, until eventually, the sky will be a vast, black darkness with no stars visible anywhere.

The "Big Crunch" theory has it that if there is enough matter (IF there is enough matter) in the Universe, the expansion will slow down and it will implode, until all that is left is a supremely dense, fiery ball. The Big Crunch theory fits nicely because it implies an infinite creation/apocalypse cycle. So basically, the universe recycles itself, and so explaining your question.

The Big Bang Theory is based on Einstein's mathematical equations from his General Theory of Relativity. The TOR (Theory of Relativity) has been proved countless times since Einstein published it. Furthermore, you have proof of the Big Bang right in your house. Turn on the television, and get to a channel that is all grey and fuzzy. This interference that you see now was created at the beginning of space and time - at the beginning of the Universe - some 13.7 billion years ago. This interference is particles left over from the Big Bang. Every time you take a glass of water, you are drinking matter that was created near the beginning of the Universe's history. We ourselves are starchildren. Literally. The matter inside us once belonged to the matter in a star.

Well. I didn't give you many examples, but that's just because I'm doing it from memory and am tired. I can find you some if you want a more scientific than colloquial interpretation.

Miss Darcy

P.S. *Contentedly* This is getting intrestinger and intrestinger. :D

[Molko]

Yes, but what created matter? An electron cannot simply appear, nor can atoms. They must originate somewhere. And btw, mathematicians have not been able to 'find out' exactly what happened at the time of the big bang. They have only been able to find out 0.54 (or something like that) of a second before the bang happened. This is because after this number, the equation ends with infinite as a result. Mathematicians are still to calculate exactly what happened at the time of the bang :)

[Dyrwen]

To answer your question "What created matter?" simply: Nothing did. Matter, in a universal sense always existed because nothing can exist but our univese, as far as we know. Time itself was the central "cause" of the big bang because before the big bang--there was no "before" and therefore the question of "how did it bang" is just that "time began." You can't do work on the universe when time isn't active, so if time becomes active and the universe as a compacted mass is there, it will explode into the universe as we know it today. Maybe its just me, but I find this explanation more reasonable than "God made it" because it only begs the question of what made God and if we're just going to say God was always there, it seems only reasonable (Occam's Razor-style) that the universe might as well have just always been there instead of mucking up our understanding of the universe with gods.

To answer your question not so simply: I just did a bit of work about the topic with my physics teacher this past week, so I'll give a rundown of what I came up with below.

The universe at the moment of "bang" is constrained by a few separate laws, even though technically speaking the laws may or may not have any relevance on the universe as a whole at such high energies as the point of "creation" it is generally understood that if these things are equivelant then it will work out:

Basically speaking, due to part of Relativity theory ((GM/r)=c^2), quantum mechanics [uncertainty principle] ((Mc^2)t)=h/2pi) and also from another part of relativity theory based purely on the speed of light (r=ct) to make sense of space time, quantum gravity requires that all three of these equations hold simultaneously. Using the accepted values of G(gravitational constant), c(speed of light, which is constant), and h(Planck's constant) one finds that:

M(mass of the universe) = 2.2x10^-8kq
r(size of the universe) = 1.6x10^-35m
t(time the bang could possibly occur) = 5.3 x10^-44s

These are basically just Planck's mass, distance and time, which dictate the limit that each of these properties can be at, for if time were any smaller then the amount wouldn't make any sense in terms of any other equation you try to make.

A consequence of this picture of space and time is that the smallest unit of space is Planck's length (1.6x10^-35m), since any distance smaller than that, which was taken up by a Planck's mass would be too unstable and therefore coming and going out of existence all the time. According to this picture, the universe at a quantum level, such as when the big bang occurred, is chaotic to say the least, and comes into existence at a length of time equal to Planck's time. Distances or times less than these lengths would be meaningless because they would not be time or distance-like, but instead particle-like.

Summary of Thoughts on Principle

In the beginning, time was at 5.3 x10^-44s [aka, unit t] (15 billion years ago) and the universe was condensed and static because nothing could move so long as time equaled that. Everything was at an extremely small state compacted and trapped inside a ball of space smaller than anything possible. This was possible because time was not allowing the laws of physics to work their usual reasonable actions on space. At the big bang, time "began", which made time excell to a higher unit of speed, which removed the tension of the universe's condensed state because it was allowed to move more freely. It began ultimately without cause because at time unit t, no laws worked properly, so causality is no longer of any use to reasoning why the acts of time’s start occurred. i.e. The "why" the universe exists needs no "why" because this analysis gives a "how" that, I believe, explains well enough why such a bang would occur, while I do confess that it doesn't say "why" it began at that moment per se, I can at least explain why it would've began in the first place because of the how.

At high energy levels, such as when time was at unit t, and the universe was condensed in a high energy state, physical laws and the forces of nature break down and/or combine. When time is at t the laws remain stagnant and shortly thereafter time sped up into its normal state, the laws began to have an impact and individual power. The uncertainty of time's predictability is cause enough for the big bang's existence and the start of time, seeing as time does not need a reason to start or stop and can do so at anytime without anyone noticing, which is allowable through quantum mechanics' uncertainty principle. Just as time can slow down when objects move closer to the speed of light, it has the capability of stopping completely. The plane of space-time breaks down just as all physical laws do at time when it is at zero state.

Time is the root of "cause" for big bang phenomena and exists more naturally than any dimension of space, as the spatial realm itself doesn’t hamper it, although the size of space and time remains limited to a point, if Planck's constants still apply.

Overview of laws and time idea:
If laws aren't working, time = zero.
If laws are working, time = one.
Causality and Newton's 3rd law break down and the supposed "1st cause" isn't necessary at the point of "creation".

How space works into the equation of time itself:
1) Space-Time can exist only when time exists alongside it. (A)
2) The laws of space exist only when time is active. (B)
3) If time doesn't exist [in the sense that nothing can move out of its tense state] then space can exist without the cause of physical laws. (A, B)

If space-time is reduced to a state wherein time is at t, then space itself can only exist at a state wherein time's stoppage allows nothing to occur. Therefore it is possible for space to bang into existence, so long as time is the central cause of its creation.

[Molko]

Wow, you explain things better than my physics teacher :D

[atiguhya padma]

Miss Darcy,

I must say I do like the way you think.

Have you ever wondered why it is that Christians don't pray for God and the Devil to be mates again? I mean it would solve a lot of problems wouldn't it?

And, God being omniscient, it comes as a surprise that he even created the angel that become Satan, doesn't it?

Furthermore, I'm convinced Hell would be much more fun than heaven. Im sure the best sex happens in Hell, for instance.

I too agree with the argument about us being products of our environement. In answer to SubT, in the case of sexual abuse amongst men in robes, that too is an environmental factor: I mean all that repressed sexuality, and the psychological effects that abuse has upon the victim, then of course its no wonder that sexual abuse is well-documented amongst the clergy.

AP

[Dyrwen]

Wow, you explain things better than my physics teacher :D
Thanks. It helps that I'm not too keen on mathematics, so I tend to absorb a lot of the theory more efficiently. I've spent a lot of time on the big bang though, so probably just experience in the field.

Not to mention my physics teacher is awesome. heh

Edit: I worked out the equations just tonight as well and it turns out that, if I'm looking at the situation correctly, all three (relativity, quantum, more relativity) equation sets do work together at that point in time, so it seems fesible to believe that this idea is physicall sound in terms of the science involved.

[atiguhya padma]

<I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -Stephen Roberts. >

I love this quote from MD's post. I have suspected for some time that Christians are fakes. This seems to succinctly state that suspicion.

[subterranean]

Not if they're hyperbole or metaphor or figurative. But you see, apparently the Holy Texts are "the Word of God" and everything inside them is true - not figurative, not hyperbole, not metaphor, just simple truth. Am I right?

This is interesting....

Miss Darcy

I suppose there are many methapors and figurative sentences in the Bible or Ghita or Qoran..:rolleyes:
Point is in a way, holy texts are just like other literature REGARDLESS you believe them as words of God or not..

[amuse]

mm...i think after a point books should be thrown away (like when they're not doing anyone any good). to quote a beloved spiritual teacher of mine, "truth is not contained in any one book; it is contained in the heart." i mean, there's only so much that reading's gonna do for you. look at the puritans in the in the 1600's, slavery, and later manifest destiny in the u.s. and a whole bunch of things all over the globe. it really takes living, not reading.

[baddad]

This thread has contains a poll designed to elicit personal opinions as to the origin of mankind. Several options are available to choose from, and although polls are the least scientific method of gathering data, we can at least see what visitors to this site hold as a personal belief: Evolution, Creationism, Not Sure What to think, None Of The Above....

My question is this; 8.7 % of those polled have chosen "None Of The Above." How can this be an option? What theory is espoused by these 8.7% who have chosen this ballot? *Wonders if the 8.7% solution will reply*

[Yorkie]

Americans' acceptance of 'Creationism' has been making the news here in the UK. According to recent reports, education authorities in one state (can't remember which, but I presume in the Bible belt) have banned the teaching of evolution and instead have replaced it with 'creationism as a fact'. Is this true or just typical media sensationalism?

[Dyrwen]

Americans' acceptance of 'Creationism' has been making the news here in the UK. According to recent reports, education authorities in one state (can't remember which, but I presume in the Bible belt) have banned the teaching of evolution and instead have replaced it with 'creationism as a fact'. Is this true or just typical media sensationalism?
Creationism hasn't "replaced" evolution in schools, but some educators and groups are trying to get it taught alongside evolution as an alternative to scientific fact. They believe it is a matter of equal tolerance of each side of the issue and feel that each should get their own allotted teaching time. However, those attempting to do this are only trying to get the Judeo-Christian version of creationism taught, rather than all creationism stories as valid alternative views, which therein lies the issue that makes their cause so damned wrong.

They did put stickers on biology books that said "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" in Georgia and a few places in Tennessee, but the stickers in Georgia were ruled unconstitutional. Personally I'd be fine with them teaching it alongside evolution, seeing as the only evidence for creation is told in one solitary book full of stories, whereas all the evidence for evolution is told in epirical fossil structures, experiment, etc. If anything it'd hurt those fighting for creationism in the schools, seeing as they wouldn't have much to back up their cause outside of outright religious preaching, which would subsequently be ruled unconstitutional to do in public schools.

So yes, it is sensationalism, but over here it's more of a "Oh these poor Christians are being oppressed by science in schools and are children are being force-fed facts instead of being taught thought." It's absurd to me, and I'm glad to you as well, but it apparently has some fuel to be fired in the US that isn't going away anytime soon. So long as adherence to belief over reasoned knowledge is thought of as noble, the issue will continue to arise.

[Adelheid]

I see you have not heard the Big Crunch theory. This explains the presence of the matter that exploded in the first place.

If you ask me (this is my personal opinion, which I'm NOT forcing on anybody) this Big Bang or Crunch theory is simply ridiculous. Right, let's put it in this light.

Suppose you were baking a cake. You'd have to measure all the ingredients first, and mix them together in the specific way that the recipe says. But if looking at the evolutionary way, there happened to be abit of flour on the counter, when a bucket of water happened to fall, thus mixing the 2 together, and then the sugar appeared and mixed itself.... It wouldn't even turn out to be a cake!!! It would be some soppy mess!

How much more do you think about this world? How much consideration has been put into it. how much effort at designing has been put into it. No explosion could have created the beautiful "round" world as it is. The universe and the galaxies, and the other planets. No big bang through time would have been able to make the planets run so smoothly for thousands of years. Think about it. No evolution could have formed all the genes and cells and chromosome that make a life. It is impossible!!! Not one in infinity would it ever make somthing like man (or animals or plants, for that matter). No, God had to have planned, and created each of us uniquely and perfectly as we are. Evolution would never have formed all the intricately designed vein of each individual leaf, etc.

In the natural law, when left to themselves, things would degenerate, not become better!!! Imagine if I left the soppy mess on the floor, and transported myself through time for billions of years, it would NEVER become a piece of cake!! Instead, you would find the house gone!!! (Due to natural decay, etc.) If YOU went away for a holiday, you wouldn't expect to find your house all new and sparkling when you came back!! NO! You would expect to find dust and maybe abit of cobwebs around the house. (And that is only for a few days!!!) What would a billion years do to your house?!?? :lol:

Think seriously about it. :nod:

[Dyrwen]

First off, I always find it quite intriguing that theists have trouble believing that the universe acts this way out of natural capability yet have no trouble believing that some all powerful being can act without limits whenever it wants without any evidence but a good hunch (seeing as you can never show evidence of something supernatural, so long as you exist in the natural realm). And Darcy, my apologies for replying to what he addressed to you, I couldn't help myself.


How much more do you think about this world? How much consideration has been put into it. how much effort at designing has been put into it. No explosion could have created the beautiful "round" world as it is.
Sheesh, bad analogy. Gravity's waves and the cyclical motion that results in it, moving along with centrifugal force of their masses would nearly always end up wittling a planet down to a "round" shape. Seeing as when it was first forming, it was a liquid hot molten mass, which guess what, was made round by its rotation. Neat eh? Try spinning water around inside a bottle and see the cyclical motion it makes when you do it, if that water were to harden into ice as you moved it, it'd be quite circular, or at least round. That's just natural law. Strike 1.


The universe and the galaxies, and the other planets. No big bang through time would have been able to make the planets run so smoothly for thousands of years.
First of all, considering the Big Bang is an accepted theory right now, I'd say that there's adequate evidence in reality alone that everything has run smoothly for thousands, even billions, of years without the outside influence of a deity. The way gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces act together make the methodology of the big bang and our universe as a whole work beautifully. It doesn't run smoothly, in a sense, either. It blows up in supernovae all the time, has planets destroyed by gamma ray bursts, asteroids, and just plain destabilized forces, not to mention the way that black holes are at the center of most galaxies, therefore making an inherent stupidity to any designer's concept of a smooth running universe, seeing as it would suck in and destroy most everything in time, even though it'd equal out eventually. Strike 2, perhaps.


Think about it. No evolution could have formed all the genes and cells and chromosome that make a life. It is impossible!!! Not one in infinity would it ever make somthing like man (or animals or plants, for that matter). No, God had to have planned, and created each of us uniquely and perfectly as we are. Evolution would never have formed all the intricately designed vein of each individual leaf, etc.
Impossible? It's already happened, you're just not willing to believe it. Take the Miller/Urey (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html) experiment back in the 1950s. They put inorganic matter inside a test tube, let it sit, hit it with short lightening bursts (such as to simulate the Earth when it was 4 billion years old) and got 15% of the inorganic matter to turn into organic matter, as well as 2% into amino acids (the building blocks of life) in one week's time. Imagine how much progress could occur in that system with a billion years to evolve in. Amino acids is a base compound of RNA and DNA, so however complex and impossible you feel it is to occur, these experiments alone show your presumptions as quite absurd. Strike 3, take a seat.


In the natural law, when left to themselves, things would degenerate, not become better!!! Imagine if I left the soppy mess on the floor, and transported myself through time for billions of years, it would NEVER become a piece of cake!! Instead, you would find the house gone!!! (Due to natural decay, etc.) If YOU went away for a holiday, you wouldn't expect to find your house all new and sparkling when you came back!! NO! You would expect to find dust and maybe abit of cobwebs around the house. (And that is only for a few days!!!) What would a billion years do to your house?!?? :lol:
I do enjoy how people equate evolution with dumping inorganic crap around your house and letting it sit to see if any aliens form. Natural decay, sure, but if your house was still powered and gave electricity sporatically throughout your house you'd have some complex organisms in that house when you returned. They'd be mostly microscopic, but probably enough of them there to be visible. Chaos doesn't necessarily imply the lack of order or design. Just because the sun explodes eventually doesn't mean that it is outlandish to believe that it still works now. It will explode, possibly fall back onto itself, create a white dwarf, possibly compact further and create a black hole, thereby distorting space itself and taking in everything around it. Order can arise from disorder just as disorder can arise from order.

The addition of a god to the equation of how the universe works only further complicates life itself. The universe is complex and incomprehensible, but we've enough comprehension so far to explain things to a reasonable degree. Personally I think you're just unwilling to accept the fact that science is pretty good at explaining the basics and would rather make the basics (big bang, evolution, even how planets form) into something more compact and faith-based. It's fine to believe what you will about how the world works, but reasonably speaking, if an explanation is valid, experimented and observed as correct to the point where its damned near impossible to prove it wrong, to not believe it out of simplicity alone seems a bit absurd.

Then again, faith is believing in something despite evidence to the contrary in some cases, so I can't assume you're one to take the position of reason alone. God isn't meant to be understood, as Christians usually say, so I certainly don't assume any extremely reasonable solution to the world's problems would change their minds one bit about whether or not God did it.

[Adelheid]

I love this quote:

" We are invited, brethren, most earnestly to go away from the old-fashioned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science. What is science? The method by which men tries to conceal his ignorance. It should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatical in theology, my brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men it is the correct thing. You are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any we possess. Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles and shape and mould our belief according to the ever shifting teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so called, through the world may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles." :lol:

[Dyrwen]

Scientific theory evolves to be more accurate over time.
Religious faith evolves to be more acceptable to different people over time.

I've a few quotes as well, which are shown in the quote thread, but I'll display them again here. To your quote's ideas of ignorance as being science's true purpose: "The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge." -Elbert Hubbard. It is only after you stop trying to explain the world as it is that you ever truly become ignorant. Understanding is an evolving process.

To the concept of the Bible truly meaning anything over time, I give you this quote: "If you take the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will disintegrate and the words will be gone. Our bible IS the wind and the rain." - Carol McGrath, a Native American. The acceptance of the natural realm as accurate is the first step to being able to stop and describe how it works.

By the way, good job not responding to any of my analysis of your follying judgements about how science, or even the world, works. I do what I can to reply with my own opinion on subjects in kind to at least see if I can defend them, I'd appreciate it if at least some attempt to volley a return defense was waged instead of running to shove your head into the sand through wise men's words.

[subterranean]

IMO Adelheid and Dyrwen shoud meet..They would have a great discussion together :nod:

[Molko]

I absolutely love science, but there is a lot of supernatural stuff that science cannot explain. I've had some weird experiences, which prove to me that there must be something out there, there must be another realm aside from this one. I've had a lot of ghostly encounters and so have other family members of mine. How can science explain that? To a certain degree, science can explain what we know very well. But it's what we don't know that's the question...

[Scheherazade]

We know what we know because science has explained it to us.

[subterranean]

I think there are science and knowledge..And knowledge may not be scientific but still it can tell us about the things we know now...

[Molko]

But the thing with science is that theories are constantly changing. In a few years time, the cell theory (for example) can be modified and refined, as well as other theories. Look at the many changes made to the atomic theory

[atiguhya padma]

Therein lies its value. It can be updated, upgraded.

[Dyrwen]

Well, some folks prefer absolutes to absolutely relatives. Upgrading makes people feel unsure, so they might feel they'd have to change their minds too much in time, rather than be safe and secure in a single belief that doesn't ever have to change.

[atiguhya padma]

Molko,

You say your experiences prove to you that there must be something out there. Weird experiences, or any experiences for that matter, don't prove anything about external reality, I'm afraid.

[Molko]

My family and I have lived in a haunted house once, and each family member had something happen to them. Science cannot explain that, and I'm not saying anyone else has to believe in ghosts and the supernatural because I've had an experience. What I'm just saying is that there must be something out there beyond science, but for the moment that cannot be proven. :) And besides, if science can be ugraded, what we do know is therefore not definate, only an inference

[Molko]

Because if we knew the definate truth, why do we keep seeking to refine what we know?

[subterranean]

But isn't continuous development/ivention/improvement the main purpose of science? If people stop challenging, then where's the progress?


Well, some folks prefer absolutes to absolutely relatives. Upgrading makes people feel unsure, so they might feel they'd have to change their minds too much in time, rather than be safe and secure in a single belief that doesn't ever have to change.

[Dyrwen]

But isn't continuous development/ivention/improvement the main purpose of science? If people stop challenging, then where's the progress?
I used the word "relatives" to imply that everything they study changes over time and they're fine with that. They take on the challenges time dictates to them and rework their ideas. But some people want absolutes and will never accept science's relative concepts, no matter how fullproof some of them are, because the idea that it has changed from something else or is going to change in the future, makes them believe that something must be wrong with it, so they justify a reason not to believe in it, while ignoring their own beliefs as changing with time.

[atiguhya padma]

Molko's case is interesting to me, because I have often come across people who form theories based upon experience and then assume that when someone attacks their theory, they are in fact denying the experience. UFO's are a case in point. I have no doubt that the UFO experience is in many cases genuine. I also have no doubt that there are no alien extraterrestrial civilisations that visit us, and that the theories the UFO experiencers put forward are false. Experience does not validate impossible or improbable theories. I think the same can be said for the born-again christian experience.

[Miss Darcy]

And Darcy, my apologies for replying to what he addressed to you, I couldn't help myself.

Not at all, Dyr, you're absolutely welcome to the conversation, it's not limited to be merely between two people. Besides, you argue much more effectively than I do. ;)

Basically, I second all you say. It's very nice to see that there are some people around who don't believe that God made the world, and for his own amusement, too. I mean, I guess if you look at it from God's point of view, you do have to be a little compassionate for him and say, well, perhaps he was a little lonely in his little infinite plaything of a universe. So maybe I shouldn't be too hard on the poor guy. ;)

And AP, sorry for not replying before to...


...I must say I do like the way you think....

And I must say that I'm very flattered that someone finds some sense in my ideas. :)

...I hadn't noticed your message, I somehow managed an oversight and skipped straight to Dyrwen's. Beats me why.


Have you ever wondered why it is that Christians don't pray for God and the Devil to be mates again? I mean it would solve a lot of problems wouldn't it?

Sure would. I guess they think that God is far too "above" (excuse the pun) the Devil to be friends with him, especially since he (that is, the Devil! :D) sinned (er, did he? I figure he must have...but I haven't really heard anything concerning why the Devil is the Devil and why exactly he got on bad terms with God, but...I digress...). But, myself, I have much more respect for the idea of the Devil than the idea of God. The Devil is clever, cunning, and crafty, which obviously he has to be for his position. I find I have much more sympathy for him than I do for God. God is simply the monarchal ruler who created the universe for the fun of it and got a bit bored.

Has anybody here read Paradise Lost by John Milton? I haven't, myself, but according to my textbook in it, Satan "depicts God as despotic and unjust in his treatment of Satan. God and his angels, however, reflect the attitudes of an absolute monarch and his court. Satan and his legions of fallen angels support the idea of independence and freedom of will and evokes sympathy in the reader." Might be worth the read.

Now, Adelheid, :)


Suppose you were baking a cake.

I have to agree with Dyrwen that this is a bad analogy. When you think about it, a very bad analogy. Cakes and the universe simply do not mix. They can't be compared, a cake takes someone to make it, and a universe is simply there from the beginning of time and space and exploded. What happened before time and space began is not of our concern, because all we know so far is time and space.


How much more do you think about this world? How much consideration has been put into it.

I have to disagree with you there. The Universe being perfect (call we it perfect? It has its imperfections...but they make it perfect as a whole. I think perfection without imperfection is very imperfect.) as it is is simply a matter of pure chance. There are many "histories", as scientists call it, out there (sounds like science fiction but is actually science fact), many different versions of the Universe which never became anything like our own. Not all of them have intelligent life. Some of them do. There is a universe in which everything happens, many different Earth's, many different possibilities. That we fall into this one is simply fate/chance.

Don't know if that made any sense. In general, after seven pm the computer and myself don't combine very well...so if I got anything scientific wrong, don't blame The Universe in a Nutshell, blame my tired brain for twisting and contorting it.

I must be off now. Bye everyone,

Miss Darcy.

[IWilKikU]

Has anybody here read Paradise Lost by John Milton? I haven't, myself, but according to my textbook in it, Satan "depicts God as despotic and unjust in his treatment of Satan. God and his angels, however, reflect the attitudes of an absolute monarch and his court. Satan and his legions of fallen angels support the idea of independence and freedom of will and evokes sympathy in the reader." Might be worth the read.


I am studying Paradise Lost right now, at a Christian University no less, and Milton's sympathies with Satan go far beyond that quick evaluation. I would love to talk more about it but that'll happen in General lit. I'm not forum-savvy enough to figure out how to add a link, so just go to General lit and check it out! :D

[subterranean]

Well, shouldn't you continue to look for explanation i/o of stop right there? Please excuse me as I'm not an expert in this kind of issue, but I don't know that there's one time in our universe/galaxies/whatever when "time" didn't exist before..



....What happened before time and space began is not of our concern, because all we know so far is time and space.


Miss Darcy.

[Dyrwen]

If something exists outside of our universe, it is near impossible to find it, since we will only be able to find what is in our own universe. If there was no time before the universe "began" then it is literally impossible to even look any farther back in time, since before that point, there was no time at all. Just my guess at what she might've meant, heh.

[IWilKikU]

I can't imagine that the big-bang that created the universe and matter also created time. Time seems like one of those things that just is, because its a concept rather than a concrete thing. How could a material bang create a concept?

[Sitaram]

Peter Davies, a physicist, wrote a book entitled "God and the New Physics" where he explores ancient ideas in theology, like time, in the context of modern notions of quantum and relativity.

Davies states that Augustine was way ahead of his time, around the 5th century, to stated that God did not wait a vast number of millenia (in duration of time) before creating the world, but rather, time springs into being as part of the act of creation.

Here is just one of many long discussions to be found by google.com

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF3-97Busen.html

Interesting side note: Perhaps not in Davies book, but elsewhere there are discussions of how Kant is simply wrong about his notions of time and space in the light of Quantum and Relativity; ingenious, but wrong.

[atiguhya padma]

Sitaram,

Would you care to expand on how Kant is wrong?

AP

[Sitaram]

I dont have time to search in google.com, but later I will, there are lots of links there about Kant, time, space, quantum, right, wrong, good, evil.... you will have a lot of fun.

[corpse]

i cant believe some people believe the creation myth posed in the bible. not onlyis evolution a proven fact, but there are two creation stories at the start of genesis which would point at oral tradition and therefore it being just a story

[atiguhya padma]

Corpse,

You are assuming that believers will be reasonable. History shows that both impossibility and contradiction are no hindrance to them. I've even had a debate with some Christians who will simply answer that God can do anything. He can do the impossible and He can make contradictions truths. Now how can you possibly use reason with such people?

[subterranean]

Exactly AP, when a person chooses to believe in particular religion means he/she (whether he/she realize it or not) in a way has become a unreasonable person.

[baddad]

Peter Davies, a physicist, wrote a book entitled "God and the New Physics" where he explores ancient ideas in theology, like time, in the context of modern notions of quantum and relativity.


Wow!! I thought I was (LITERALLY) one of the few people in the world who had read Davies' book, "God and the New Physics!!!!" I own this book, originally bought it second hand for research on a novel I wrote. Never, ever, expected anyone else to have read it. Nor can I understand why anyone would.........but again, WOW! *you learn so much on this forum*

[atiguhya padma]

Here is something that might astound you even further baddad. I met Paul Davies at an Open University party here in the UK back in the 80's. He was lecturing at the University of Newcastle back then. I think God and the New Physics had just come out in paperback then. A fascinating guy from what I remember. (I've read the book too!)

AP

[baddad]

A.P. I own an old-and-getting-tattered hardcover of the book. And now my world is more complete.....the author and at least two other people have read that book!!!! I mean, it IS obscure isn't it ?

And..............I gotta go with Kiku here (and welcome back iwilkiku).....didn't Stephen Hawkins... *pauses....or was it Einstein* ....say that TIME is only a creation of man, a concept, a ruler, a means of measurement!

[Miss Darcy]

Ah! Paul Davies! One of my favourites. I've got his book, "How to Build a Time Machine", among many others, and I find him a very good writer.


And..............I gotta go with Kiku here (and welcome back iwilkiku).....didn't Stephen Hawkins... *pauses....or was it Einstein* ....say that TIME is only a creation of man, a concept, a ruler, a means of measurement!

I thought *I* said that. :D But you know, everything is relative, even time; no two persons have exactly the same time. It's not the Newtonian, established background that moves the same for everybody: no, time is relative, "everything is by comparison." Have you heard the one about the person walking down a street in a city, and asking a random person what the time is (seeing he has a watch)?

1st Person: What's the time, please?
2nd Person: I don't know; ask a philosopher, I'm only a scientist.

Hehe. Time, as in physical time, is interweaved with space, if you've heard of spacetime. As you travel through space, you travel through time. The way I understand it, the faster you move, the slower time goes for you in comparison to someone stationary. It won't be a big difference, but only noticeable in nanoseconds, but it still exists. The difference, I mean.

Time is elastic.

Miss Darcy.

[atiguhya padma]

http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/time/mctaggart.html

http://www.ditext.com/mctaggart/time.html

Two links on McTaggart's concept of the unreality of time. He wrote a book in the 1920's called The Nature of Existence, in which he came up with his argument about time having the A, B and C series nature. Very difficult to summarise his ideas so anybody interested should go to these websites.

[Sitaram]

I did a google.com search on "kant is wrong" and came up with 308 hits.

Of course, I in no way mean to imply that Kant IS wrong about anything simply from the number of google.com hits returned. But such a search does uncover a lot of interesting reading; interesting at least for those who are motivated by a genuine intellectual curiosity.

As I quickly looked over some of this material, one thought in particular struck me. Kant saw refutation as the touchstone of error, and hence Kant labored to construct a philosophy which would be irrefutable. But can we assume that something is unquestionably true simply because it has yet to be refuted? Can we assume that it will never be refuted? Can we know that anything non-trivial is irrefutable?


The first four links are what I feel are most interesting (and one is written from the point of view of Islam)

Among the remainder of the links, there are some which look like interesting forums where one may post.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2002/PSCF6-02Carter.pdf

http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/Chapter7.htm

http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys419/spring05/lectures/Lecture14/L14r.html

http://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/IIA-3/chapter_xix.htm

===================


http://sunsite.utk.edu/math_archives/.http/hypermail/historia/mar00/0065.html

http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewtopic-topic-1842

-start-0.html

http://www.thymos.com/mind/lakoff2.html

http://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/IIA-3/chapter_xix.htm



http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/tpm/tpm01-19.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_4_117/ai_59473700

http://radicalacademy.com/adlerbriefing5.htm

http://commonsensewonder.com/mtarchives/005681.shtml

http://www.pabst-publishers.com/Psychologie/psyzeit/cogproc/1-2000/freeman3.htm

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=139176&start=25&

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=139176&start=25&

http://www.radicalacademy.com/adiphilwrgkant.htm

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/srp/arts/KTS.html

http://www.friesian.com/space.htm


http://www.rpi.edu/~eglash/eglash.dir/SST/phil2.htm

http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys419/spring05/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~hatfield/phil004gr4.html


http://academics.vmi.edu/psy_dr/PhilosophyToday.htm

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-105218.html

[Scheherazade]

Out of curiousity... Sitaram or others who have not voted: There is a poll attached to this thread and you haven't voted... Why/why not? If you are not sure, there is a "Don't know what to think" option as well...

[Sitaram]

I did not realize that you anticipated response from everyone. Since you mention me by name, and ask me point blank, I shall certainly give you the courtesy of an answer.

I am personally convinced that evolution is a scientific fact. I am convinced by documentaries which I see on the subject, and what I have heard scientists say.
I am not a scientist myself, nor a mathematician nor a physicist, so I cannot prove such things myself. So, it is pointless for anyone to debate with me personally whether evolution is a scientific fact. I know that certain fundamentalist preachers claim that God greated fossils to TEST the faithfulness of his flock.


I do try not to become embroiled in certain kinds of disputes with certain kinds of people, because I doubt that the dialogue will be profitable.

For example, if I debate with a fundamentalist, of any religion you please, (and I have done so on numerous occasions), we will go around in endless circles, and in the end they will still embrace exactlly the same fundamentalist beliefs.

I suppose there are a few people left in the world who are convinced that the earth is flat. If it is conceivable that such people would use the internet, and if you were to post a poll on "Earth: flat or round?" well, such people would offer endless circles of explanations of why the earth is flat, and how photos from the moon are a subtle conspiracy on the part of the government.

[Scheherazade]

I was not anticipating a response from everyone personally but yours was the last post in the thread and I noticed that there were some people, who, despite posting numerous messages, have not voted in favour of one of the options available. As often, curiosity got the better of me.

Thank you for giving me the courtesy of an answer.

[Sitaram]

Sometimes, when I am bored, and there is not much forum activity, I read threads I might not normally look at, and if I see something interesting regarding, e.g., time, quantum, Kant, Paul Davies, ... that sort of thing, then I throw in a comment... the business about time coming into being with the big bang was what prompted me to post, but not the creation/evolution issue

I am intrigued by the question "How was Kant wrong, in light of more modern science and thinking", but then... we do not have a philosophy forum per se, and such a topic is certainly not literature, or poetry, or religion texts, though I guess it could go into the chat forum

[IWilKikU]

I havn't posted a response because I only recently abjured Christianity and Creationism, I'm sure AP can remember some of our debates from ages past ;). But I havn't done any research on evolution for myself. So it's not that I "Don't know what to think" as the poll suggests, but that I merely havn't decided yet. In anycase I don't believe in biblical creation, but evolution in the sense that we went from fish to lizards to ... etc... until we became humans (I apologize for my increadibly ignorant and superficial analysis of evolution ;)) still seems a bit suspicious to me. perhaps in a couple years when I'm a bit more stable in my beliefs I'll dig this thread up and post a reply.

[MungoParks]

Where belief begins, there ends the true pursuit of knowledge.

[Violet]

The radiometric measuring of the years can be very inaccurate. It is based on an absolute, and not a KNOWN age...thus, scientist will only accept the date which fits their thinking.... after all, all scientists are biased. Could it not be 6000 years, rather than billions of years???

[Dyrwen]

Violet, Radiometric dating is quite accurate when it comes to being millions as well as billions of years old. It only becomes inaccurate at thousands of years and really, that's only carbon dating, rather than radiometric, so yes their dating works only for larger dates, but the fact of the matter is: They still are accurate. If the world were only thousands of years old their measurements wouldn't work at all any of the time.

They work all the time when it comes to measuring the age of the Earth. Quite frankly, there isn't any evidence the world is only thousands of years old, no matter what tests you use. Unless you completley redefine how long a period of time is, there isn't any basis for such an argument. It's completely without basis.

[mono]

Violet, Radiometric dating is quite accurate when it comes to being millions as well as billions of years old. It only becomes inaccurate at thousands of years and really, that's only carbon dating, rather than radiometric, so yes their dating works only for larger dates, but the fact of the matter is: They still are accurate. If the world were only thousands of years old their measurements wouldn't work at all any of the time.

They work all the time when it comes to measuring the age of the Earth. Quite frankly, there isn't any evidence the world is only thousands of years old, no matter what tests you use. Unless you completley redefine how long a period of time is, there isn't any basis for such an argument. It's completely without basis.
Very well explained, Dyrwen. I rarely post in the 'Religious Text' forums, but felt a little confused about the nature of radiometrics. I did a little research, and then found your post.
Thanks. ;)

[atiguhya padma]

I think I read somewhere the other day that one of the scientific measuring satellites (the Hubble maybe?) had finally discovered the age of the Universe: 13.7 billion yrs old, give or take 1%.

[Dyrwen]

I think I read somewhere the other day that one of the scientific measuring satellites (the Hubble maybe?) had finally discovered the age of the Universe: 13.7 billion yrs old, give or take 1%.
You are correct (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html) in that age. NASA has a spiffy little explanation on that site of everything about the bang, including a picture of the universe itself back then. :)

[Hilarion Zerrud]

Goodday,

Please have patience with me because this is my first time, ok. I have not gone the book over, however, over the years of search my self conviction is that human being in this planet is first and foremost an evolved one and then creation took over, then evolution again. We are alien in our own right and a traveling space-specie. Why do you think we travel around our solar system and using the planet earth our spaceship! Thanks for your patience.

[Dyrwen]

Heh, not much of a spaceship, considering we travel in an elliptical orbit around the sun only and have been for quite some time. Though you're correct in that sense, the Earth is a "spaceship" wherein the entire planet's species are inhabiting. Not sure what you mean by the whole evolved-created-evolved thing, but perhaps you'll expand on that. Suppose you might be a raelian or other alien-created-us subscriber, though I'd need your clarification on that much.

[Adelheid]

This is getting worse! *sigh* From monkeys to spaceships.... :brow:

God created this world with age. Could he not have put fossils and all the other stuff under land as well? When he created Adam an Eve, he created them full grown. Same for the sun, moons, stars and animals and trees and plants. It's only the 2nd generation that started young. Perhaps that could be the reason why "science contadicts" the Bible. Science claims that the earth is billions of years old. God made the world with age. So far, the same level. But even though God made the world with age, the world planet and universe itself is only thousands of years old. Shouldn't the earth evolve even more if it did evolve in the first place? Yet we see that the earth hasn't changed a bit, since the beginning of the world (beisde of course, the occurances of natural disasters). What if the world "evolved" itself into wrong? it could go crashing into all the other planets? But no, God created the universe, and has kept it in perfect time since.

Here's an article (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mainpts.htm) I found:


Creationism is not "against" modern science! In fact, the Biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. "Creation Science" is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is "all there is").

No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.

Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.

The "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time).

The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolution postulates it is "building up". Atoms to people evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact.

There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis!

[atiguhya padma]

Adelheid,

Somebody hundreds of years ago, wrote a primitive account of how the Universe and everything in it began. You seem to be asking us to accept this account rather than the much-updated account given us by science, an account I might add that has plenty of experimental evidence to support it.

So should we really believe some old anonymously written document of what was then current thinking? or should we accept scientific current thinking?

You can use imagination to support any account of the origin of the Universe, and build into that account plenty of unsupportable ideas. Bertrand Russell pointed out your very argument back in the first half of the 20th C. He also added the curious fact that religious people only seem to use this inventive reasoning when they talk about the Universe's origins. How come they don't use the same reasoning for whenever a car comes round the corner (maybe God just put it and its driver there at that very moment with the appearance of continuity through time); or whenever someone enters the room; or meeting up with a friend (after all God could have tampered with your memories). See, it makes the world a rather confusing place to use that inventive reasoning. And because those who promote it with regard to the origins of the Universe, do not seem to use it in everyday life, their arguments don't seem to have much force upon the rest of us.

[Adelheid]

How come they don't use the same reasoning for whenever a car comes round the corner (maybe God just put it and its driver there at that very moment with the appearance of continuity through time); or whenever someone enters the room; or meeting up with a friend (after all God could have tampered with your memories). See, it makes the world a rather confusing place to use that inventive reasoning. And because those who promote it with regard to the origins of the Universe, do not seem to use it in everyday life, their arguments don't seem to have much force upon the rest of us.

That is untrue. I believe that everything happens for a reason. God Himself decided that that particular thing should happen, in a certain way. In the same way that God made the universe, He does everything for a reason. Everything happens because of HIM-God

[atiguhya padma]

Everything you say above can be applied to everything else, the car coming around the corner, someone entering the room, a meeting with a friend etc. They can all have reasons. They could all be created right now with historical evidence woven into their very fabric. Your argument supports God creating a false history to all of creation AT ANY POINT IN TIME WHETHER 4004BC OR YESTERDAY OR 10 SECONDS AGO. The fact that we cannot know the reasons behind God's doing this at any time is neither here nor there.

[Taliesin]

The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory

Untrue.
This belief is not contrary with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. While life is a decrease in entropy, still, at that time when life has existed and evolved, the total rise of entropy in universe has been much greater, outweighing the small decrease in entropy of life.

[Hilarion Zerrud]

Hi Dyrwen,
I am glad that you have regarded the planet earth a spaceship, that makes two of us in the same thinking. In response to your query, I would like to refer you to the book "The 12th Planet". It is intriquing to note that creationist and evolutionist could have come to same conclusion and settle their despute.

Some says the earth is 14 billion years old, others 12 billion. Whatever it is, you will note that activities relating to human existence only developed in the last thousands of years (if my memory serves me right about 200,000 years) and fast tracked in development very recently.

The billion of years that past was a force of evolution, in the very recent time something created the human specie, as we see it now in ourselves, from the available evolved specie/being during that period(some sort of cloning in our modern world). From thereon, we evolved as we go on evolving from hereon.

It is sci-fiction, but do you think alien from outer space more advance than our civilization created us from their own image from the recent past?

[Molko]

I'm just wondering Hilarion Zerrud, with your beliefs, are they part of a religion? And how did you come to believe it? Im just curious to know, because I have never heard of a belief like that before :)

[Stanislaw]

Ai, it 'tis possible that aliens did create Earth, but whom created the Aliens? :D

[Dyrwen]

Hi Dyrwen,
I am glad that you have regarded the planet earth a spaceship, that makes two of us in the same thinking. In response to your query, I would like to refer you to the book "The 12th Planet". It is intriquing to note that creationist and evolutionist could have come to same conclusion and settle their despute.
Thanks for the headsup on the book, I'll look into it.


Some says the earth is 14 billion years old, others 12 billion. Whatever it is, you will note that activities relating to human existence only developed in the last thousands of years (if my memory serves me right about 200,000 years) and fast tracked in development very recently.
The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, the Universe is 13.5-15billion years old. I see your thoughts on why human beings have only evolved and thought as they do this recently as being useful, though personally I feel that it has taken as long as it has because we've been evolving from lesser lifeforms since then and becoming more cognitive.


It is sci-fiction, but do you think alien from outer space more advance than our civilization created us from their own image from the recent past?
It is quite possible that aliens are able to go creating us in their image and reasonably more probable than the existence of a god doing the same, considering a lifeform in this universe doing the act of creation of mankind is more probable than a supernatural form of power from outside of our universe. I can't rule out the alien possibility, just as I can't rule out any other, though personally I prefer my own explanations more so, of course. Heh. When we get some evidence that aliens dropped down and cloned us from themselves, or when the prior human beings that had evolved are shown to somehow not be a different evolutionary pattern from homo sapiens, then I guess we'll have some insight into that. Hopefully someone'll come up with something, since conflicting evidence is always interesting to test.

[Hilarion Zerrud]

yes. 4.5 billion years. however if we consider the atom/particles that started the earth in its initial creation(big bang), can we safely say that earth is the same primordial matter with the universe?

what advanced discoveries in our modern age are actually retracing advances in the forgoten past. this is according to the book i referred you. learn how cloning of "adam" was perfomed as detailed in ancient writing long long long before the existence of the bible. then judge for your self.

[Hilarion Zerrud]

Extra terrestrial beings did not create earth, neither our solar system nor universe. However, there are free-thinker individuals who would like to believe that superior beings from outer space created the first "adam".

[Hilarion Zerrud]

hi molko,
because you are a friend i will share with you my spirit. religion: yes, I believe in the "Force" that created the universe. Some call him God, other Father or Allah, science would sometimes call it ENERGY. He is a Supernatural Being yet nobody sees or touches him. Belief: Religion is a belief when nurtured will become your faith. I have expressed myself in my belief.

[Miss Darcy]

Hey guys,

I can't say as much as I would like to say, because saying anything at the moment takes time, and time is...money. ;)

Just a few comments (not that you want to hear them but oh well):

I don't get why you don't like the spaceship analogy, Adelheid. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it, any more than there is with man being evolved from more primordial forms of life. And, unlike evolution, it does not challenge belief in God. What's wrong with God creating a planet which moves, for heaven's sake? The only thing I can see is that there is no mention of any of this, no mention of black holes, millions of suns, big bangs, and other astronomical subjects in the Bible. But in that the Bible is wrong - the Earth orbits around the sun. The sun moves around the centre of the Milky Way. The Milky Way moves around the Universe. And the Universe...well that is as far as our knowledge can go. Until we figure out a way to get through a wormhole (two-ended black hole) without being spaghettified in the process and find another Universe.


That is untrue. I believe that everything happens for a reason. God Himself decided that that particular thing should happen, in a certain way. In the same way that God made the universe, He does everything for a reason. Everything happens because of HIM-God.

Another thing I find fascinating. How can God control what happens and at the same time let free will exist?

And a final comment, Zerrud, I find the idea of aliens creating life likewise fascinating. But I don't think there's need for aliens to come and create life...I find the theory (not really a theory?) of us coming from outer space more plausible. You know, comet lands, primitive cell in comet, primitive cell reproduces, etc. I'm not saying I believe in it - I don't. I haven't really done much thinking about where life itself - i.e. the very first living cells - has come from, but here's my two minutes of thinking about it: viruses can't really be classified as "alive", and yet they *are*. They are somewhere in between living and non-living. Therefore in some such state the first life may have been born, gradually tearing away from the world of the non-living.

That's my two cents for now. *Rattles donations box* Any other givers?

:D

Miss Darcy

[Dyrwen]

yes. 4.5 billion years. however if we consider the atom/particles that started the earth in its initial creation(big bang), can we safely say that earth is the same primordial matter with the universe?

what advanced discoveries in our modern age are actually retracing advances in the forgoten past. this is according to the book i referred you. learn how cloning of "adam" was perfomed as detailed in ancient writing long long long before the existence of the bible. then judge for your self.
The same matter, in a sense, yes. All the atoms of this universe are all 15 bya because we are all made of the same things from the past, in a sense. I am the same carbon atoms that popped into existence back then, though there is only 4% of the entire universe that is actually made out of atoms. The rest is 23% Cold Dark Matter and 73% Dark Energy (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101matter.html), so that means that over 96% of the universe is undetectable in the laboratory.

Personally I don't believe in an "Adam" of any sort, cloned or not, though I'll see what your book is about eventually. I find it more possible for the primordial building blocks of life on Earth to have helped life become what it is today over 4 billion years ago through abiogenesis of a sort. The RNA, DNA, amino acids started the chain reaction that began life on this planet, to me and many others. I think we've been evolving since then and don't really find the work of an alien race much needed, but we've each got our own ideas on that idea so far.


hi molko,
because you are a friend i will share with you my spirit. religion: yes, I believe in the "Force" that created the universe. Some call him God, other Father or Allah, science would sometimes call it ENERGY. He is a Supernatural Being yet nobody sees or touches him. Belief: Religion is a belief when nurtured will become your faith. I have expressed myself in my belief.
I happen to hate, well not hate but dislike a lot, the idea that some folks put forth of "energy" being the same type of force some describe as gods. A god is a supernatural being with conscious power, as far as I'm aware that's what most people define it as, and it isn't some natural force that merely exists to make the matter be balanced. We can detect energy and we can find energies in this world and others, yet the only way people are detecting "God" or "Allah" etc, is to believe in it, not to find it through scientific means. The energy that science detects and adheres to knowing about is rarely, if ever, the same type of energy new age types and religious folks of the world are believing in.

Not to say what you believe is wrong, but it is not correct in a scientific sense or in a way that would make the energy of this universe correct. Study more relativity, less religion, and it makes a little more sense as to why I would contest such an idea about energy in the universe.

[Hilarion Zerrud]

[QUOTE=Miss Darcy]Hey guys,


I don't get why you don't like the spaceship analogy, Adelheid. There's And a final comment, Zerrud, I find the idea of aliens creating life likewise fascinating. But I don't think there's need for aliens to come and create life...I find the theory (not really a theory?) of us coming from outer space more plausible. You know, comet lands, primitive cell in comet, primitive cell reproduces, etc. I'm not saying I believe in it - I don't. I haven't really done much thinking about where life itself - i.e. the very first living cells - has come from, but here's my two minutes of thinking about it: viruses can't really be classified as "alive", and yet they *are*. They are somewhere in between living and non-living. Therefore in some such state the first life may have been born, gradually tearing away from the world of the non-living.

[Hilarion Zerrud]

Miss Darcy, you're a fine creature...aeons ago the universe had undergone a tumultous begining, however, this was also a way of finding order among the titans. Very gradually, immesureably, stars, planets, galaxies, milkyways were formed. However, harmony was never in their midst because gravitional influence and finding their path were their forever concern. In the aeons past, our solar system together with the revolving planets were formed undergoing this evolution of creation. The Earth as we know now was not yet created then.... and then the earth was created....Sorry, I'm just thinking aloud. I'll come back later.

[Molko]

Thank you for sharing you beliefs, Hilarion Zerrud. I find them fascinating :)

[Miss Darcy]

I'm flattered that I'm a fine creature, and have no problem with humans or any life being created by aliens. As long as we don't have to worship them as gods, they're fine by me. It's a thought-provoking...what should I call it...idea? Well it's thought-provoking. But I wonder, what purpose did the aliens have in creating...life? Man? Did they create merely the first living cells in their laboratories or was it more complex than that - did they plant man on Earth? Because the latter conclusion would clash with evolution, and if we're trying to be scientific...are we?...that wouldn't be too good.

I'd be interested to hear more about this alien-creation hypothesis. :)

Darcy.

[faith]

Why is there no such alternative as both? Evolution and creation. God created the evolution is pretty much what I believe I think...

[Scheherazade]

Thought you might find this interesting:

In his weekly opinion column, Brian Walden considers the gap between science and religion - and what this might mean for the future of humankind.
Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, wrote something recently that chilled me to the bone.

Sir Martin is the winner of the Michael Faraday Prize awarded annually by the Royal Society for excellence in communicating scientific ideas in lay terms. In my case he did almost too good a job.

He pointed out that though the idea of evolution is well-known, the vast potential for further evolution isn't yet part of our common culture. He then gave an example. He said: "It will not be humans who witness the demise of the Sun six billion years hence; it will be entities as different from us as we are from bacteria."

It may well be that this vision of the future leaves you unmoved. After all, six billion years is an almost unimaginable length of time. On top of that, the death of the Sun isn't going to be a jolly business and I suppose that if we're able to summon up any feeling on the matter it ought to be gratitude that there aren't going to be any humans around to suffer when it happens.
These seem sensible arguments and ought to console me - but they don't. This is Easter and I can't help contrasting the Christian promise of my youth with what science expects to happen.

Bashfulness

There's a long established British tradition that in general conversation religion isn't discussed. The great Whig essayist, Joseph Addison, writing in the early 18th Century said: "We have in England a particular bashfulness in every thing that regards religion." That was in an age when belief in God was well-nigh universal. If it wasn't thought to be tactful then, it must be far worse now, in a secular age when Christian belief has declined and other religions are widely practiced.

But it's for that very reason that I think we ought to talk to each other more about the central mystery of life. Widespread agnosticism and the place in society of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism ought to mean that the climate of opinion is tolerant. Nor do we need to be expert to discuss science and religion, providing we have the humility to learn.

Like many others, I eventually accepted the scientific explanation of the origin and destiny of mankind. But, also like many others, I have no hostility to religion and, in particular, no contempt for Christian faith; quite the contrary. Indeed, at Easter, I confess plainly that I miss the consolations of Christianity.

I had a Pakistani friend, who died after a long illness. As he weakened physically, the subject he most wanted to discuss was the reconciliation of Islam and science. After a time, worried that he might be distressed, I said, very foolishly, that perhaps he could be at peace because Islam involved faith and he was a believer, whereas science operated in a different dimension collecting data, experimenting and seeking to confirm knowledge.

This distinction made him angry. "Have you the slightest idea how close we are to the end of humanity?" he asked. "I'm a scientist and I'm afraid. Only from the morality inside us can we learn restraint and that morality must come from religion."

Unpleasant surprise

I admit I thought he was exaggerating, but I listened and went away and consulted one of the works he'd suggested. I was unpleasantly surprised to discover exactly what my friend was talking about. It wasn't possible nuclear accident, or climate change, but the hypothetical threat posed by technological advances in genetics, robotics and nanotechnology.

Genetics; in that we might intentionally or accidentally create a plague; robotics, where we shall be able to download human consciousness into machines and nanotechnology where a nano-machine might turn the biosphere into dust in a matter of days.

Having heard a fair amount of doom-mongering in my time I'm resistant to it and disinclined to believe that the worst will happen. Nevertheless, lacking the scientific knowledge to judge whether there was a real threat, I asked some of those who did know.

They were amused by my ignorance, but confirmed that without proper constraints the technology is a distant threat. Then somebody told me that not only was I not up to speed scientifically, but that some philosophers, well aware of the scientific facts, were discussing their moral implications. So nothing that I'm saying has the least originality, but neither is it freakish.

Human life

A growing number of people believe that we need a fresh dialogue between science and religion. I mean religion in its widest sense - a belief in the value of human life. Apparently the direction of scientific progress means that we have to make moral judgements about what's permissible and what isn't. We need a moral consensus.

Most emphatically, I don't mean that we need to create a sort of blancmange morality that wobbles about, containing a bit of God, a bit of physics, a dash of Catholicism plus a smattering of Buddhism and a few sprigs of well-meaning atheism. That kind of ethical coalition wouldn't survive, and we need something that will. What we all need is to acknowledge our interdependency.

The hostility between science and religion stemmed from the 18th Century Enlightenment when science was forced to contradict some of the assertions of the Christian churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church about the history of humanity.

Political liberals had their own quarrel with the Catholic Church, regarding it as a reactionary influence in politics and wanting it separated from a secular state. So the liberals joined the argument on the side of science and we got what became the familiar division of liberal thought and science against religion, though naturally individual liberals and scientists were sometimes believers.

This classic alliance between science and liberal thought in which the opinions of both are mutually reinforced, or the classic opposition between religion and scientific progress no longer operates across the board.

Indeed the present abortion quarrel in Britain is a striking example of a new pattern. Professor Stuart Campbell took photographs of foetuses at between 12 and 24 weeks' gestation and he admits that it never entered his head that the pictures would touch off a national debate. But the photographs were taken by a new technique showing foetuses younger that 24 weeks looking far more developed than had previously been accepted.

The photographs changed some people's minds about late abortion, including Professor Campbell's. He now thinks that "24 weeks if the baby is healthy is too late". The wider significance of this episode is that the Catholic Church, which opposes abortion, finds that science has done something which helps the Church and not necessarily liberal opinion.

Tolerance

Of course Professor Campbell doesn't share the Church's view on abortion. He supports abortion, but not as late as 24 weeks, pointing out that "science has moved on". So has the relationship between science and religion in my opinion. It would be sloppy thinking to claim there are no tensions and ridiculous to suppose that a common agreement can be arrived at.

There can be no agreement, but there can be tolerance. The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, leading a secular party in an increasingly secular society, on Tuesday asked Britain's churches to play a bigger role in national life.

Not just Tony Blair, but many contemporary politicians, want society to get what help it can from both science and religion.

Now, in a spirit of tolerance can I do justice to the Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, who alarmed me by predicting a future species as superior to humans as we are to bacteria? Well Sir Martin has a dedication to humanity and shares Albert Einstein's view that we need a perspective that's global, humanistic and long term. He can't be expected to share the scientifically illiterate prejudices of somebody like me.

Anyway Sir Martin doesn't rule out a place for humanity. He thinks spaceships launched from Earth might spawn new oases of life elsewhere. You see the interdependent, tolerant world doesn't have to be intellectually dull.


(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4387563.stm)

[atiguhya padma]

Interesting. Thanks Scheher. I would just like to point out, that should Brian Walden go back to reading Aristotle and Plato, in conjunction with Cicero's commentary on religion and maybe Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue, he might realise that we certainly don't need ethics to come out of religion, despite what his friend might have said.

Regarding abortion, this, I feel is a subject that will never be resolved. It certainly doesn't help that the vast majority of the politicians and legislators discussing this subject will never experience pregnancy.

[Hilarion Zerrud]

Sorry, I am late. Miss Darcy, I would like to address your interest but then to enlighten you, I have to go back from the time beyond.. beyond..beyond. And to continue from where I started.... Engraved in the seven tablets of stones were the phases/stages of creation describing our solar system dated(carbon) 10,000 years ago.

..When earth was not yet in creation, Nine planets was revolving around our sun. From nowhere another massive planet get caught in our solar system that started the chaos. The planet Tiamat, in direct path of the new comer was split in to halves and thrown off its path. The injured half of Tiamat and one satilite became the Earth and the moon...

At this point, it will be a scientific and religious discussion in view of:
.. there was a record on earth of this cosmic proportion long before the Bible was writen.
.. our solar system were identified long before our Science could.
.. who could possibly transmit this knowledge to the people on earth in the forgoten past.

I'll be back..

[Stanislaw]

Are you refeering to the enuma elish of the babylonian creation legend...Where tiamat is the mother goddes, she is chaotic, and one of a newer God, Marduk slays her, and divides her into the heavens and the earth.

Those Tablets were written in 12 B.C. (a few years after the old testament was being started)

The seven tablets are barely 2000 years old, let alone 10000.


.... Engraved in the seven tablets of stones were the phases/stages of creation describing our solar system dated(carbon) 10,000 years ago.

..When earth was not yet in creation, Nine planets was revolving around our sun. From nowhere another massive planet get caught in our solar system that started the chaos. The planet Tiamat, in direct path of the new comer was split in to halves and thrown off its path. The injured half of Tiamat and one satilite became the Earth and the moon...

At this point, it will be a scientific and religious discussion in view of:
.. there was a record on earth of this cosmic proportion long before the Bible was writen.
.. our solar system were identified long before our Science could.
.. who could possibly transmit this knowledge to the people on earth in the forgoten past.

[baddad]

.... 10000 year old..........alien tablets..............earth not yet in creation.........????

My geology/earth-history knowledge has gotta be WAY out of whack.......why are not more people aware of this turn of events.

Stanislaw: you never cease to amaze. Your correlation is a beautiful thing!!!!

[Adelheid]

Why is there no such alternative as both? Evolution and creation. God created the evolution is pretty much what I believe I think...

Dear Faith,

There cannot be both. Creation is something which is made by God. Evolution believes that it formed itself. How can you be made by God, and form yourself? When God created everything, He said it was perfect (since He is truth, He doesn't lie) thus, it would be impossible for anything to become better by evolving. It is already perfect, remember?

Adelheid

[Stanislaw]

http://www.curiouscharacters.com/Characters/eratics/bow1.jpg

Thank you Baddad! :nod: (closest thing to a bow) lol

[Molko]

Ive been doing some reading lately, and stumbled across the anthropic principle. This principle basically goes along the lines of: if the formation and evolution of the universe had been performed with slightly varying results, a universe in which life as we know it could not exist.

I found this principle interesting because it gives rise to the idea that the universe is exquisitely tuned, almost as if to accomodate us... Makes you think, doesnt it? :)

Im wondering if anyone else knows much about this principle and is willing to elaborate on it. thanx :banana:

[i_rock_poems]

My gosh how can you believe that evolution created this world. How can you say there is no god? HOw can you be that ignorant. What created evolution? HOw did we begin? HOw can you say theese things. Have you read the bible? Have you been to a church that worships Jesus?

Edited by Logos to remove swear word. Please refrain from using them.

[Dyrwen]

i_rock_poems, not to be a jerk, but you really need to start saying more than your usual sentences in threads. It isn't productive. Make a clear thought, not an outburst.

And to clear up the random jolt of energy that you spat at the screen: Evolution "made" life evolve. It doesn't say what originally created, or started life on Earth or in the universe. People say there is no god because they usually find no evidence of any gods, or have no reason to believe in one. Nothing "created" evolution, since it is a natural process. Ask yourself what "created" god to get an idea as to how this works. We "began" as amino acids and RNA molecules billions of years ago. Most folks here have read some of the Bible, yes, and seems a lot also believe it's more literature than fact. I've been to a church that worships Jesus, big deal, make a point or stop asking questions, heh.

This has been a brief reply to every question in that rockpost, whew.

[IWilKikU]

My gosh how can you believe that evolution created this world. How can you say there is no god? HOw can you be that ignorant. What created evolution? HOw did we begin? HOw can you say theese things. Have you read the bible? Have you been to a church that worships Jesus?


For how we can believe that evolution created the world, see uncountable posts in other threads in religious texts by Atiguya Padma and Dyrwin.

For how we can say there is no God, see Bertrand Russell's The Case against God, or Why I am an Athiest, or have a parusal on Dyrwin's athiest forum. You'll find that the great philosopher and many PhDs etc... are NOT ignorant. I spent 21 years of my life in a church that worships Jesus and refused to seriously consider (even for the sake of arguement) ANY other viewpoint and called people *****es who didn't believe the way they did. You sound like you'd fit right in there. And I have read and studied the Bible in Church schools from kindergarden to my fourth year of University. No one wants to year posts that consist of 'gee you sure are dumb.' If you have an intellecual arguable point, feel free to express it and we'll have a nice civil debate, otherwise find a Christian sheep forum where no one will question things you feel are important.

PS to Dyrwin, why don't you have a link to your forum anymore?

[Dyrwen]

PS to Dyrwin, why don't you have a link to your forum anymore?
You mean Internet Infidels (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php?) forum, or Atheist Network (http://www.atheistnetwork.com/)? I barely frequent either anymore, so I don't link to them as such.

[subterranean]

Dyr, want to thank you for the DNA/RNA link you posted some time ago...forgot in which thread. But I find it very usefull for personal refference :)

[baddad]

Ive been doing some reading lately, and stumbled across the anthropic principle. This principle basically goes along the lines of: if the formation and evolution of the universe had been performed with slightly varying results, a universe in which life as we know it could not exist.

I found this principle interesting because it gives rise to the idea that the universe is exquisitely tuned, almost as if to accomodate us... Makes you think, doesnt it? :)

Im wondering if anyone else knows much about this principle and is willing to elaborate on it. thanx :banana:

No magic or mystery here. Life will out. A toxic swamp will support some forms of life. The arctic supports some forms of life. Extremely salty seawater supports some forms of life. A niche in a rocky canyon wall will support some kinds of life. Dry desert tundra will support some sorts of life. Undersea thermal vents spewing a myriad of chemicals and at depths and pressures that boggle the mind support some forms of life. A petrie dish improperly cleaned before being put into storage will blossom and support life.....

And yes, with any slight vatiation in conditions any of these biospheres would probably not support the types of life that now exist there, but 'life will out', something else would adapt to the place, and thrive, and so on.....

Any of these conditions may exist elswhere in the universe as well, not just on earth. And there are probably many forms of life adapted to living conditions we could not begin to imagine, and may have not yet, or maybe never will, discover here on earth. There is absolutely no rational reason to believe we are the intended beneficiaries of some fantastic design. 'Life Will Out' . It is hubris to assume we are the pinacle of existence or the sole reason for the universe's existence. The Anthropic Principle makes for a neat little package of speculation, and thats always fun, but.........IMHO...... *sticks out tongue and makes dismissive blowing noises*... ( :

[IWilKikU]

Here's a question about evolution, Why are the other planets, or ARE the other planets in the solar system absent of even the RNA molecules that built life? Especially after baddads comment that 'there are many forms of life adapted to living conditions we could not begin to imagine'. Seems like if the most nasty remote climates of earth could support some sort of microscopic life, then someplace like Mars, which even has frozen water reserves, should be able to as well. Is there any evidence of extra terrestrial living microbes?

[Dyrwen]

Here's a question about evolution, Why are the other planets, or ARE the other planets in the solar system absent of even the RNA molecules that built life? Especially after baddads comment that 'there are many forms of life adapted to living conditions we could not begin to imagine'. Seems like if the most nasty remote climates of earth could support some sort of microscopic life, then someplace like Mars, which even has frozen water reserves, should be able to as well. Is there any evidence of extra terrestrial living microbes?
The Viking Probe on Mars disputedly found microbe structures that appear to be fossilized bacteria, if I recall correctly. For the most part, we haven't found life outside our planet because 1. We haven't checked out many of the planets around us with rovers (only Mars and a few moons, some probes have hit other planets though in one spot) 2. It appears that any other life in our solar system would be microscopic, and you can imagine how difficult it is to find such life on the surface of a planet with a satelite. And if you want, 3. Because we may be the only life in this solar system that is alive at this time because we have an atmosphere stable enough, etc.

There is seemingly water underneath the ice of Europa (a moon of Jupiter) as well as supposedly some ice at the equator of Mars. NASA continues to expect life to be found there, since water was our key to life, though its quite possible life around the universe could exist without water--We've just no precedent, I suppose. For the most part, other planets are absent of RNA probably because they lacked water, and water + electricity + minerals would be what would create amino acids, which would eventually start up RNA existence, if I remember right.

Hopefully that answered well enough.

[Scheherazade]

An article from BBC's website. If you go to the link at the bottom, you can read other people's views on the issue and post your own as well.

Would you Adam and Eve it?
By Stephen Tomkins
Author

A teachers' union has said it is alarmed by an increase in lessons which teach that Adam and Eve was the literal truth, rather the fable which science believes it to be. The rise in creationism is not just an American phenomenon.

For many British people, belief in a six-day creation seems to be one of those incomprehensibly American quirks, like beef jerky and pledging allegiance to the flag. But a large and growing number of British Christians are defying Darwinist orthodoxy in favour of creationism - the belief that Adam and Eve are the mother and father of humanity.

They are less outspoken than in the US, where a new $25m museum of creationism is being built in Kentucky, but they quietly number hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions.

Dr Monty White tours churches throughout the UK, teaching "the biblical view" that the universe is about 6,000 years old.

"People believe in evolution because they choose to do so," he says. "There is not a shred of real evidence for the evolution of life on earth."

Though he argues his case scientifically, it is fundamentally a religious commitment, a matter of faith in the Bible.

"Evolution is not compatible with Christianity," he insists. "Genesis tells us that death only came into the world because of Adam's sin. There was no death before then, and you can't have evolution without death."

There is a creationist museum in Portsmouth called Genesis Expo, run by the Creation Science Movement (CSM). Children can play with Boris the dinosaur and learn why evolution is scientifically impossible.

'Brainwashing'

Where do Boris and his fellow dinosaurs fit into this worldview?

Many were killed off in Noah's flood and became fossils. Others hung around to scare our ancestors who called them dragons. Bill Cooper, a council member of CSM, argues the 8th Century poem Beowulf records a genuine encounter with a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

The chairman, Dr David Rosevear, says even non-Christian visitors often accept their claims, "in spite of the brainwashing they get from the media".

"Typically," he says, in a statement that would make arch evolutionist Richard Dawkins' blood run cold, "a mother will bring her children round in the holidays and say to me 'Yes, that's pretty much what I always felt'."

How common are such beliefs among UK Christians?

Monty White feels he is in a growing minority, David Rosevear in a clear majority. More objectively, the Evangelical Alliance has polled its members, which number about a million.

One-third of those surveyed believe Adam and Eve were created within six days of the start of the universe. Of the other two-thirds, some would accept evolution while others see Adam and Eve being created after six "ages" of creation, rather than six literal days.

Reverend William Gardner of Devonshire Drive Baptist Church in Greenwich is one minister who endorses the creationist view. He says the world was created in six days, several thousand years ago, and he teaches this in church.

Is evolution incompatible with Christianity? "Yes," he says, "because ultimately evolution simply dismisses God."

He feels frustrated that the scientific evidence is not treated more seriously. "So many evolutionists are incredibly arrogant and give the impression that only fools believe in creation, when there are many eminent scientists who say there is some evidence of design there."

Most apologists for creationism share this frustration. One of CSM's leaflets rallies support for teaching creation in schools: "The hard-nosed humanism of evolutionism has become entrenched in the British educational system and in society at large. We need your dedicated support to topple it!"

Dr White is less gung-ho, but is saddened and mystified by schools' refusal to set Genesis alongside Darwin. In his university career, there was often open and heated debate on the subject, so why not in the classroom? "I simply don't understand what the problem is. Why can't evolution be criticised in schools?"

Bucking the trend

On the other side of the desk, Mel is 16 and goes to an Anglican church in Leeds. She respects people who don't take Genesis literally, but no one has yet convinced her that evolution is more than a theory.

"People think you're nuts if you don't believe in evolution," she says. "But maybe in 100 years there'll be some new discovery, and people living then will think that everyone today was nuts to believe we evolved from monkeys."

How, at this already sufficiently awkward age, does it feel to be so out of step with the world around you?

"If you're a Christian, you have to go against the flow on all kinds of things - sex, smoking and getting drunk. Evolution isn't a big deal really. It doesn't come up a lot."


(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4398345.stm)

[Dyrwen]

Many were killed off in Noah's flood and became fossils. Others hung around to scare our ancestors who called them dragons. Bill Cooper, a council member of CSM, argues the 8th Century poem Beowulf records a genuine encounter with a Tyrannosaurus Rex.
This is too funny to me.. First they had to have faith in the Bible, a book of literature, now this guy also has faith in a different piece of literature, Beowulf, which wasn't even written by the "word of God", or inspired for that matter. It was a pretty Norse-related story, if I remember correctly, so quite interesting for him to even mention the book around Christianity. Just pathetic though, putting his faith in blatant fiction. At least he picked a great story to believe in.


"People think you're nuts if you don't believe in evolution," she says. "But maybe in 100 years there'll be some new discovery, and people living then will think that everyone today was nuts to believe we evolved from monkeys."
If someone could dispell the myth that we came from monkeys, perhaps there'd be less ignorant people believing that evolution is preposterous. For those of you unaware and not reading the whole thread, we came from a common ancestor of monkeys and apes. Picture a tree of genetic drift, when it branches off humans are on one branch, apes on another, and monkeys on another. There was a common trunk, or species, we all came from.

[baddad]

Here's a question about evolution, Why are the other planets, or ARE the other planets in the solar system absent of even the RNA molecules that built life? Especially after baddads comment that 'there are many forms of life adapted to living conditions we could not begin to imagine'. Seems like if the most nasty remote climates of earth could support some sort of microscopic life, then someplace like Mars, which even has frozen water reserves, should be able to as well. Is there any evidence of extra terrestrial living microbes?


To answer the last, no. But........ IMHO.........looking at Mars, or the moon, or every planet and moon in OUR solar system, or even examing our entire galaxy (one of billions, each containing billions of stars) and finding little evidence of life, and thereby claiming life does not exist anywhere but on earth, is akin to looking in you desk drawer for you car keys, and upon not finding them there, claiming that obviously your keys are not to be found anywhere inside your house.

The Universe is vast beyond comprehension. Our solar system is such a tiny fraction of the whole as to be inconsequential as a laboratory for exploration and discovery of the true nature of the entire universe. I think that life has a habit of flourishing anywhere there happens to be even the slightest possibility of survival. LIfe Will Out. To rule out the possibility of life, in whatever form, existing somewhere else in the vast cosmos, seems a little premature, and at least egocentric, if not a blatant example of the ignorance of humanity........ but thats just me........

[Miss Darcy]

Hear, hear!

Life outside our planet certainly exists. There is simply no question. Intelligent life, too, perhaps. Our universe is suitable for intelligent life - we ourselves are the proof (er, that's if we call ourselves "intelligent"...which, considering some of the species' actions, sometimes seems rather doubtful). And it is so unimaginably large, as baddad says - perhaps even infinite - that it would be absolutely pathetic to think that we're the only ones in it.

It's like saying that only one grain of sand on a long, long beach has a complex structure when magnified.

Must go, sorry about the strange analogy, I couldn't think of anything better,

Darcy.

[frozenlight]

the belief that we are the only intelligent life form in this infinite universe is just another proof of egocentrism, self-sufficiency and narrow-mindedness that most fellow humans don't lack a bit. but hey, if god didn't mention any aliens in the bible, than there is absolutely, positively, undoubtedly no such thing... right? :D

by the way, i vote for evolution. and all the archeological discoveries in the last century are backing me up.

[Dumpweed]

Big bang theory, something from nothing. I find that hard to swallow
Coming from goo, crawling out of water, evolving from monkeys. Not as hard to swallow but not going down very well. Billions of years, think of the implications of billions, I don't think this is a number any person could comprehend. As far as someone trying to claim they know what happened billions of years ago, that would take faith and faith is best left out of science. I'll take my chances and follow my own intuitons. That's my 2 cents.

[Dumpweed]

If someone could dispell the myth that we came from monkeys, perhaps there'd be less ignorant people believing that evolution is preposterous. For those of you unaware and not reading the whole thread, we came from a common ancestor of monkeys and apes.

Is someone thinking we came from monkeys as appose to someone thinking we and monkeys come from a common source really gonna make or break your case. Seems like a minor technicality to me

[Dyrwen]

It is an issue when those same ignorant people say: "Why are there still monkeys around then?" And yes, I've heard plenty of people say that, so a breakdown of how it really works does make some sense in terms of breaking the case.

[Miss Darcy]

Firstly, welcome to the Forum, Dumpweed, and secondly...just to comment...(anyone who has read anything I've written before is in a pretty good position of guessing what's coming! - "Just to comment..." from me basically means "just to expatiate on the subject...")


Big bang theory, something from nothing. I find that hard to swallow.

Well if you find the Big Bang theory - which is very systematically constructed, and what's more, proven by observational evidence and relevant to the expansion rate of the universe as well as the amount of Lithium and neutrinos - hard to swallow...then I'm sure that you must find the idea of God goes the wrong way much more.

Okay, firstly, the universe did *not* come from nowhere - it has always been here. I say always, because the word "always" always has something to do with time. Put it this way, the universe has been here ever since time existed, and as to what happened "before" time existed is acting very trivially. Before time existed, there was no time. As time was born in the Big Bang along with space what happened before then, when there was absolutely nothing...is an impossible question. It defies logic.

And to me, so does this whole God thing. I understand you have trouble with the Big Bang Theory because you find it difficult to imagine something coming from nothing. Well so do we. Where did God come from? Was he created by a greater god and given his own universe to rule over? Did he then create man and woman, and then write them a book to make sure they never stopped believing in him, in fear of the possibility that they might start worshipping the greater god instead of him? Or did God just come from nowhere? Saying that there was no time before God, I think, is just stealing an idea from science. Saying that God has always been here defies logic. Why would he wait for infinity until he created planet Earth? - That's pretending he created it. But we all know that he didn't. It's a fact, creation or no creation. The earth created itself. Or rather, the theory is that the sun formed out of the dust of a nebula, as most stars do, and all the leftovers stuck together and created the planets. The leftovers of the leftovers then formed the asteroids. Which is, I think, a *lot* (no sarcasm!) more credible than some giant, invisible bearded guy taking a whole universe from absolutely nowhere, fashioning one particular pinpoint in perhaps infinite space....and lavishing such care on that particular pinpoint, and all for nothing too, as it seems to me that practically all of us are going to join thingy, whats-his-name...Satan in Hell, leaving poor old God lonely in heaven with only a couple of spare angels to keep him company. So I guess he'll go off and create another pinpoint and go through the process all over again. At any rate, if there was a God, then I reckon our planet would probably be just an experiment. Not a very good one, either, when it comes to us humans. He succeeded much better with the animals.


Coming from goo, crawling out of water, evolving from monkeys. Not as hard to swallow but not going down very well.

Heh, I wouldn't exactly call it goo. But I have to go now, I'll give you some data on evolution and why it makes sense later, and also go into DNA and how we're all related, even with trees and other animals...how we share some 99.4 % of it with the chimpanzee...anyway...

Darcy

[Dumpweed]

Thanks for the welcome.
As far as this forum, evolution vs. creation, I find everyones views very interesting and thought provoking. This forum appealed to me because I've debated the subject with myself for awhile. IMO both sides have a strong argument and I've gone back and forth (I read in an earlier post that creation relies on bashing evolution which is true alot of the time but creation still has a leg to stand on and is a legitimate belief, IMO). I have done my fair share of research and can't say I've read everything or even a fraction but I know the basics, to say the least. In the end I decided to go with what I feel and I suppose that would be written testament. I'm not going to recite facts or quote anyone. I have seen enough debates on this subject to make me sick. Just to defend my belief, not to attack anyone elses, I can swallow the idea of God because religion is built on faith and science on fact (what you can prove). I always felt that evolution and everything it entails took faith to believe. Why I say my 2 cents is because I am just sharing what I believe and not trying to convince anyone else.

To justify my belief I think that God is infinite and exists outside of time. Which to exist outside of time means no beginning or end. So god did not come from nothing he just simply always has been.

[Dumpweed]

It is an issue when those same ignorant people say: "Why are there still monkeys around then?" And yes, I've heard plenty of people say that, so a breakdown of how it really works does make some sense in terms of breaking the case.

In that context you have a point. I stand corrected.

[atiguhya padma]

<I always felt that evolution and everything it entails took faith to believe.>

You can see it happening with fruitflies and bacteria. It doesn't really require faith to believe in it.

<To justify my belief I think that God is infinite and exists outside of time.>

Existence is a concept that applies to both space and time. It seems to me to be a nonsense statement to claim that there is an existence outside time.

[Dumpweed]

I am not familiar with fruitflies proving evolution. Are you saying that fruitflies have evolved to become something other then fruitflies?

Look at our subject matter. Most of it could be passed off as nonsense. I am gonna pull the faith card here. If God created time and space I would assume that he could very well exist outside of it.

[atiguhya padma]

Fruitflies show adaptation over generations, one of the postulates of evolution.

Your last statement is like saying the letter Y created the alphabet.

[atiguhya padma]

Existence makes no sense without reference to time or space. If you think it does, maybe you could explain what it means.

[Dyrwen]

To feel that God has always been and not the universe is to be an adherent to faith, because one needs faith in God to pull off that kind of belief about the universe, since there's no possible way to reason how God exists from within our universe outside of believing that something else (God) created it.

Whereas the acceptance that the universe has always been here isn't so much to do with faith, as it is a reasonable deduction based on how space and time work insofar as we know it does (as I explained back on Page 4), and remains a reasonable concept so long as we believe that the universe is all there is because there cannot be anything outside of it that we'd ever know about from within our own.

It isn't a faith thing when it comes to any biological sciences, such as evolution, but I suppose if you care to drop the label on the Big Bang (seeing as it's impossible to ever get a picture of it happening), all the theory with evidence in the universe won't ever make it right or wrong. I personally choose to reside in the concept of knowing something as possible or impossible or not knowing things, rather than believing in them when it comes to things like this, so faith has never been something I could accept for many things and certainly never for a god.

[Stanislaw]

Jesus Wants Me For A Rainbow!

:D

[baddad]

Yes my friends, Jesus does not want me for a rainbow....


HOOOOeeeeyyyyy!!!!! Yowzer!!!

Dumpweed!!! A great big welcome to the site. Nice to see a newcomer jump in with both feet, create a little splash and ripple!!! Stick around my friend, I think your gonna fit right in! You might be in for a real tussle in this thread though......

[Miss Darcy]

I am not familiar with fruitflies proving evolution.

You know, Dumpweed, fruit flies can prove a lot more than you might think. Not just evolution. They're often used in scientific testing because their DNA is very similar to ours. In fact, we have a lot in common with the fruit fly. To quote Sharmila Bhattacharya from NASA, "About 61% of known human disease genes have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian analogues."

But fruit flies or not (almost typed "flute fries" :p ), there is ample evidence for evolution. Not only fossils (has it ever seemed strange to you that there are no dinosaurs in the Bible?), but genetic evidence. Firstly, humans share 99.4 % of their DNA with chimpanzees. According to http://home.att.net/~meditation/chimpsDNA.html, "Tracking mutation rates in the genes, the scientists estimate that the common ancestor of chimps and humans diverged from gorillas about 7 million years ago, and then separated into two species between 5 million and 6 million years ago." I don't see how creationists can ignore such plain facts. Any reliable site will tell you the same. If you search Google for "chimpanzees DNA human 99.4 %" you'll get a few interesting ones. One is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12766228&dopt=Abstract .

Secondly, it is impossible to dismiss the evidence in fossils. Somewhere on this forum I saw someone's idea that fossils are fakes, which is outrageous - plus untrue. Fossils are *not* fakes - or at least real fossils aren't fakes. Fake fossils are your models you find in shops that are some $60 cheaper than the real thing. But *fossils* aren't fake. Otherwise they're not fossils.

Look at me go! *Shakes head sadly* A whole paragraph and I hardly got a single idea through. But I'll make up for it in the next one. ;)

Some fossils contain DNA. I find it amazing that anybody, even creationists, who indeed should never surprise anyone (no offence there), can ignore such evidence. Both arid and polar environments can preserve DNA, which is usually rapidly broken down after the animal or plant dies. Extracting preserved DNA can be difficult, and though initially scientists hoped to access DNA millions of years old, the more successful attempts have been within the 100, 000 year range. But even this is quite sufficient to prove evolution. Perhaps you have even heard of Jurrasic Park? Though such happenings would be (thankfully) impossible due to the fact that no DNA that old is likely to be intact, it does show a good idea. Cloning any preserved DNA would be very difficult and very unlikely to succeed, at least with modern technologies; however DNA can be extracted from certain fossils which clearly show they were once alive. Long before the Bible was written or God was created.

And then there is adaptation. Adaptation is evolution right before your eyes. That is, evolution leads to adaptation. Species that don't adapt quick enough simply die out. They are forced to change to survive. This is called natural selection, which I'm sure you've heard of. Nowadays many species are becoming extinct because their environments change too quickly for them to adapt to them. For example, the logging of rainforests. It happens too quickly and therefore animals die out.

A good example of natural selection is the story of the peppered moth. It occurred around the time of the Industrial Revolution. The peppered moth was light in colour, a sort of off-white, speckled brown. In the area of Manchester, England, peppered moths began to be very obvious to their predators. The barks of the trees on which they rested were becoming darker and darker due to the smog of the nearby factories. If the peppered moth had not adapted, it would have died out as birds could now easily spot them. However - it did. In 1848 the first dark peppered moth was sighted. It was a product of natural selection. You can find out more about this here (http://www.cienciateca.com/stsevol.html) or in any book about evolution.

There's so much evidence around that I've never mentioned it till now - I thought it was too obvious. But you never know...

Miss Darcy

P.S. And by the way, congratulations to Adelheid for starting such a successful thread! Why did it outlive other, similar threads? - Natural selection, my friends, natural selection. :D

[subterranean]

A little interuption here. Here's some excerpts of articles, which some or all of you might already know, but I just read this yesterday:

"What I think the DNA materials has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together", said Professor Antony Flew, 81, of the University Reading, United Kingdom. "It could be a person in the sense of being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose".

Article by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God", Associated Press report, Dec, 2004.

"Prof. Flew is one of the most renowned atheist of the 20th century...", says the atheist writer Richard Carrier. "So, if he has changed his mind to any degree, whatever you may think of his reasons, the event itself is certainly newsworthy"
"Antony Flew Considers God...Sort of, " www.infidels.org, Dec, 2004.

Further, Prof Flew stated his apology

" As people have certainly been influence by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done"

Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale, "Sorry, Says Atheist-in-Chief, I do Believe in God After All", Dec 12, 2004.


Comments please....

[Miss Darcy]

Comments: To me, religiously speaking, there's nothing sadder than conversion. Whether the person is an atheist or simply of a different religion, it's just sad. Usually converting an atheist would not be easy and would take a lot. A good example is Sue from Hardy's Jude the Obscure. She was always a strong atheist, but when her children died she was so grief-stricken that nothing was left to her except to turn to faith. She left Jude and went back to her husband. She felt it was a sign from the heavens and became a fervent Christian. The lesson is, she would have never become a Christian if she had not been so wholly overcome by agony.

The conversion of atheists does not mean there is a God any more than the deconversion of Christians means there isn't one. It simply means that the person in question has either undergone emotional turmoil of some kind or that some sort of coincidence/persuasion has been used, though I think there are very few cases from either side where persuasion does any good.

And as to,


"What I think the DNA materials has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together. It could be a person in the sense of being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose".

My personal opinion is that this professor was so stunned by the diversity of the microcosmic world, so amazed by the intricate workings of DNA, that he decided that something must have created them - which is certainly untrue. With a bit of logic you'll realise that it would take forever and ever for any god, infinite or not, to put together this very intricateness. No human or godly design could ever make this. This is natural phenomenon.

[lhaeber]

"If the historical pathway should forever remain hidden, we can still develop bodies of theory and experiment to show how life might realistically have crystallized, rooted, then covered our globe. Yet the caveat: nobody knows." Stuart Kaufman

[baddad]

An old saying: There are no atheists in foxholes. Fear makes many a believer. Professor Flew is 81 years old, nearing the end of his earthly existence as a human. I'm not surprised that he is covering all the bases......just in case. And of course, octogenerians are not exactly well known for retaining complete control of their mental faculties. And one more thing.....who asked the question of him? What bias was injected into this report by the source searching for this answer so as to be newsworthy. And where was it reported? What medium? Was it reported in a religious forum type media? Huh? HUh? *whew*

[Miss Darcy]

81 years old? Now that begins to make sense. I second Baddad if he doesn't mind me doing so. Though I think it's not a very good atheist that decides to convert at the last minute - just in case. You're right...it must be age.

[subterranean]

Just as I expected..the comments I mean..thank you baddad :nod:


And by the way Missus Darcy, hope that it won't happen to you when you grow old..the age thingy..:rolleyes:..

[Dyrwen]

Just so the 'no atheist in foxholes' thing is out in the open as well, www.maaf.info proves a point in the right direction there.

I'd agree with the age breeds fear idea as well, since well, what harm is there in it at that point in believing just in case, since by then you're pretty much able to make up your own mind without much interference by others. Death is the one unknown that scares more people than any other, so the need for an afterlife more and more as one approaches the time of death isn't too absurd, albeit hypocritical of one's beliefs.

[Stanislaw]

Just to clear things up: not all religious based newspapers twist the facts to support themselves, and going by that thought I wouldn't trust too many secular newspapers either.

[subterranean]

Exactly Stan....


So, I think there's a posibillity that one day Dyr and AP change their minds sometime in the future about these evolution and divine being things....

But I'm just wondering, is it only cause the age problem???? Seriously, can't you give something better than that???? Or age is the ONLY reason that you can give to explain about the professor's conversion???

I mean the prof was an atheist for almost his entire life, and suddenly the thought of death scares him alot or perhaps suddendly, he experieced some nerves breakdown, then he converted....I mean is that all????

[subterranean]

D'oh
This man was an atheist for long years and he's an intellectual, so you think he just suddenly stunned and said..."OH THERE'S A GOD...".....




My personal opinion is that this professor was so stunned by the diversity of the microcosmic world, so amazed by the intricate workings of DNA, that he decided that something must have created them - which is certainly untrue. With a bit of logic you'll realise that it would take forever and ever for any god, infinite or not, to put together this very intricateness. No human or godly design could ever make this. This is natural phenomenon.

[Stanislaw]

maybe he found God through the Grace of God? A revelation.

[baddad]

Yeah, ok Stan, Sub, I never meant to imply that secular media were anymore trustworthy than 'specialty' media, and in fact, my post addressed that very issue of 'media bias'. All I'm saying is that someone may have obviously tried to use the Prof. as a progaganda ploy, and in fact as I reread the quotes reportedly made by the prof I note how easy it is to frame a question so as to get a certain slant with the answer.

And I would never begrudge anyone believing whatever they want, whatever makes them feel good ! It is all good. The Prof has the right to believe whatever he likes, and more power to him!

But really, one's age cannot be discounted as a catalyst, as age is a good reason, if not a driving force, of change to one's perspective. It is not an unlikely occurence (aging=rethinking a position) nor is it a 'simple' solution to a complex question. Time changes us all, waning days occupy the mind with speculation about death, what is it like? will I know I'm dead? do 'I' just stop? At 81 years old a person has already outlived many if not most of your friends, family, perhaps even some of your children.

Perhaps the Prof. had a revelation. Yes, perhaps.

[subterranean]

Agree with you there baddad. I posted that excerpts not with the intention to defend one party, just merely trying to "throw" a discourse..What happened to someone, eventhough that he's a professor, can't be generalized to other people.



And I would never begrudge anyone believing whatever they want, whatever makes them feel good ! It is all good. The Prof has the right to believe whatever he likes, and more power to him!.

[Dyrwen]

Exactly Stan....


So, I think there's a posibillity that one day Dyr and AP change their minds sometime in the future about these evolution and divine being things....

But I'm just wondering, is it only cause the age problem???? Seriously, can't you give something better than that???? Or age is the ONLY reason that you can give to explain about the professor's conversion???

I mean the prof was an atheist for almost his entire life, and suddenly the thought of death scares him alot or perhaps suddendly, he experieced some nerves breakdown, then he converted....I mean is that all????
Most "recant" stories in the news are just propaganda anyways to further the cause of religion in other people. So that they might stop and think, "See, even I can change someday to find the truth." Or some such idealistic thinking towards such concepts. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but to be fair, you don't hear many stories about people deconverting too often in the mainstream.

A person's reasons for changing their beliefs about a topic such as gods means only anything to the person in question, very rarely has it anything to do with why I believe or how I will in the future. Many people grow up and lose gods, others gain them. That's life, we all cope with it in different ways.

[Scheherazade]

Don't you think this is a two way street? Like an atheist professor 'sees the light', a religious person can also realise that his/her beliefs are not satisfactory anymore and become an atheist/agnostic etc... None of us know how our future expriences will affect us.

[subterranean]

Indeed.............


.. None of us know how our future expriences will affect us.

[Dyrwen]

Don't you think this is a two way street? Like an atheist professor 'sees the light', a religious person can also realise that his/her beliefs are not satisfactory anymore and become an atheist/agnostic etc... None of us know how our future expriences will affect us.
Well, I thought that was assumed, but so be it: Yes it's a two-way street and I didn't meant to imply anything other than that, though I can only comment on what I've seen.

[Stanislaw]

Most "recant" stories in the news are just propaganda anyways to further the cause of religion in other people. So that they might stop and think, "See, even I can change someday to find the truth." Or some such idealistic thinking towards such concepts. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but to be fair, you don't hear many stories about people deconverting too often in the mainstream.


Most news stories in the media have been exceptionaly anti christian. I have seen alot of anti-christian propoganda, I am not sure where this pro christian propoganda that you speak of is.

[atiguhya padma]

Just look in the UK press. We constantly get articles, letters and opinion columns defending the existence of religious schools; the incitement to religious hatred bill; the loss of family values due to loss of religion; etc etc.

[Stanislaw]

Well, atleast here in Canada, where I am, the newspapers are very anti christian

[atiguhya padma]

Maybe they are making up for all those centuries of aggressive persecution of dissent against Christianity:)

[Stanislaw]

Maybe they are a bunch of narrow minded loud mouths who persecute one group for no reason other than hatred for that group. :mad:

[q0987]

If you were a scientist and you wanted to make a new life form, how would you go about it? If you were the life form created, how would you define your existence? Evolution vs creation is a fruitless subject, since the evidence on both sides can point to one side or the other. The one question you should ask your self is; which is more profitable to you? That there is a God who loves you and wants you to be with Him for eternity? or your just a big bag of dirt and when you die you will return to the earth and your existence will end.

[Dyrwen]

Bag of dirt. No contest.

Pascal's Wager (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/) isn't effective, realize that or just stop talking.

I don't need a god in my life, whereas using your argument, I would only need a god in an after-life, which may or may not exist. Until you can make a decent reason to believe in a god, while I'm alive, you'll continue to meet resistance over the idea you're presenting. Work on that though, really.

By the way, if you could cite some of that "evidence" presented by creationists that contradicts evolution, I'm sure we'd all find it useful in believing your idea presented, again.

[q0987]

For you my friend there is no argument that would persuade you. Your mind is made up. The bible calls this state the state of the walking dead. So enjoy your existance, until you do die. Then when you are in front of the living God, you can tell Him that he doesn't exist.

[Dyrwen]

Least you're willing to admit, by mere suggestion, that your mind is made up as well. So I can respect our mutual disagreement, heh. Better not to be persuaded by the mere mouths of men, than face the consequences of an alternate god in the end. Or as a more appropriate wordsmith would say it:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, 1787

[baddad]

Or as a more appropriate wordsmith would say it:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, 1787

...IMHO...
Hear, hear! No god could show disfavour towards rational thinking. Organized religions' approach seems to be an appeal to emotion, and not an appeal to human kinds ability to think for themselves. Religious groups prefer to indoctrinate people early in life, the younger the better if the brainwashing is to take a strong hold and last a lifetime. Fear is used as the stick, and an everlasting life of happiness at some undefined point in the future is the carrot. The last thing any church wishes its parishinners to do is think for themselves. What they really want is for you to hand over your free will to them because it is obvious by their reasoning that people cannot be trusted to think for themselves. If there is a God, he would probably be dismayed, at least, with the tactics and irreverent partisan approaches taken by organized religions.

qO978: So spiritual belief (according to one of YOUR posts) is a matter of profitability? And the notion of profitability is tied to either faith (God exists) or scientific fact? I do believe in choosing whatever perspective makes one's life the easiest, as long as it injures no others. But to ignore truth (we ARE of the earth, chemicals, gasses, etc) as so many religions advocate seems to me to be exactly the trouble with organized religion; "ignore truth, believe us".
I think I'll advocate for truth and fact. But hey, that's just me.....

[Miss Darcy]

I think I'll advocate for truth and fact. But hey, that's just me.....

*Vehemently* It is not just you, you've got pretty much every atheist in the world behind you... :nod:

I'm afraid there's so much proof against God that there is absolutely no reason to believe in him. Or her. But I don't think most Christians call God a her...simply for the reason that Christianity is ruthlessly sexist, giving no rights to women...that is, Christianity in its wholeness is merely faith in a book, and therefore we should consider all in this book to be adhered to.

And as to "evidence" for creationism...I'd be extremely interested to hear it. So please don't hold me in suspense for too long. You know what I mean by evidence...logical, credible stuff, not mythology of any kind...though I do love mythology...I digress. :D And I don't want "miracles", either, because any that have happened in actuality have been merely natural phenomena.

Darcy

P.S. Well, Sub, I've got a great idea. If I change my mind about God, I'll get back to you in 65 years to tell you how and why. ;) Though I must admit anything can happen, I am even more willing to admit I see absolutely no chance of that happening. And even if it did, I'd only have to read a paragraph or so of Dawkins, or Hawking, or Gribbin, or anyone like that, and I'd easily slip back into atheism with a sigh of relief.

[IWilKikU]

For you my friend there is no argument that would persuade you. Your mind is made up. The bible calls this state the state of the walking dead. So enjoy your existance, until you do die. Then when you are in front of the living God, you can tell Him that he doesn't exist.

Well, not everyone on this forum is uh... 'walking dead'. I was born and raised Christian and have just... 'converted' to atheism. My mind is far from made up and I still search Christianity, Buhddism, non-religious ethics, etc... for direction in how to live my life, and I gotta say, Dyr and AP make a helluva lot more sense to me than Mr. 'I don't want to argue with the walking dead'. Way to spread the Good news q0987!!! Keep us new atheists away from your silly church.

[Scheherazade]

Please let's remember to keep the discussions -especially those which relate to sensitive issues such as religion- within the Forum rules and respect each other's views even though we do not agree with them.

[IWilKikU]

sorry :ashamed:

[subterranean]

Well I think q0987's statement is no better..So no need to feel sorry Kik

[Miranda]

Could you give the scriptural reference for this please. I don't recall reading this before.


For you my friend there is no argument that would persuade you. Your mind is made up. The bible calls this state the state of the walking dead. So enjoy your existance, until you do die. Then when you are in front of the living God, you can tell Him that he doesn't exist.

[Stanislaw]

...IMHO...
Hear, hear! No god could show disfavour towards rational thinking. Organized religions' approach seems to be an appeal to emotion, and not an appeal to human kinds ability to think for themselves. Religious groups prefer to indoctrinate people early in life, the younger the better if the brainwashing is to take a strong hold and last a lifetime. Fear is used as the stick, and an everlasting life of happiness at some undefined point in the future is the carrot. The last thing any church wishes its parishinners to do is think for themselves. What they really want is for you to hand over your free will to them because it is obvious by their reasoning that people cannot be trusted to think for themselves. If there is a God, he would probably be dismayed, at least, with the tactics and irreverent partisan approaches taken by organized religions.

Well, er, ahem... Organized religion isn't about brain washing, it is about worshiping God, and learning of his will for people on Earth. It is not about indoctrination, it is about belief and faith. One doesn't call there home an indoctrination facility, so why should a simple structure that houses the concecrated body of christ an indoctrination facility???

And athiesism has it's "carrots" aswell. A life wher one may do whatever they please because there is no eternal consequance.


You know what I mean by evidence...logical, credible stuff, not mythology of any kind...though I do love mythology...I digress. And I don't want "miracles", either, because any that have happened in actuality have been merely natural phenomena.

:rolleyes: well you see there is no concrete proof, THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED FAITH. And mmiracles have happened, infact there are quitew a few, there are the biblical miracles, there are the stigmata miracles, there is the miracle at Guadalupe! So just stating that there are no miracles is tripe, I would like to see your proof that no miracles have occured!


qO978: So spiritual belief (according to one of YOUR posts) is a matter of profitability? And the notion of profitability is tied to either faith (God exists) or scientific fact? I do believe in choosing whatever perspective makes one's life the easiest, as long as it injures no others. But to ignore truth (we ARE of the earth, chemicals, gasses, etc) as so many religions advocate seems to me to be exactly the trouble with organized religion; "ignore truth, believe us".

Organized religion does not preach to ignore facts, and the bibal states that man is made of the earth, read Genisis for that'ne.
And it is not ignore truth believe us, it is ignore heracy believe God.

[blp]

Well, er, ahem... Organized religion isn't about brain washing, it is about worshiping God, and learning of his will for people on Earth. It is not about indoctrination, it is about belief and faith. One doesn't call there home an indoctrination facility, so why should a simple structure that houses the concecrated body of christ an indoctrination facility???
Wow. You sound a bit brainwashed. Actually, a lot of people do think of the home as a brainwashing facility and see it as the task of becoming an adult to liberate themselves from the received ideas passed on to them by their parents. One of which might be religious belief.


And athiesism has it's "carrots" aswell. A life wher one may do whatever they please because there is no eternal consequance.
Sorry, but this is just nonsense. Every action has a consequence - although the idea of heaven is a fantasy of a place where there aren't any and the idea of being forgiven all your sins and going there is a fantasy of the consequences here on earth ultimately not mattering.




:rolleyes: well you see there is no concrete proof, THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED FAITH. And mmiracles have happened, infact there are quitew a few, there are the biblical miracles, there are the stigmata miracles, there is the miracle at Guadalupe! So just stating that there are no miracles is tripe, I would like to see your proof that no miracles have occured!

Yes. This is why these arguments are so pointless - because the religionists deny the basic terms of argumentation from the outset, stating that through their faith, their going to continue to believe no matter what arguments the rest of us offer. Their faith apparently doesn't extend to faith in the idea of logical argument. And yet they continue to argue.
You immediately jump from stating that proof doesn't matter to giving proof. This obstinate clinging to something that doesn't make sense is making you incoherent, or preserving your incoherence.

[subterranean]

How can you be so sure?


*Vehemently* It is not P.S. Well, Sub, I've got a great idea. If I change my mind about God, I'll get back to you in 65 years to tell you how and why. ;) Though I must admit anything can happen, I am even more willing to admit I see absolutely no chance of that happening. And even if it did, I'd only have to read a paragraph or so of Dawkins, or Hawking, or Gribbin, or anyone like that, and I'd easily slip back into atheism with a sigh of relief.

[subterranean]

Just a silly question:

Did the ancient man have the same body structure as today's man? I mean did he have same, for example, digestion system, neuron system, blood circulation system, etc???

[Dyrwen]

Ancient man, in terms of <10k years ago did have basically the same structure biologically and mentally. They just weren't exposed to the same amount of information to become as full brained, pardon the term, as we have. For the most part, mammals hold the same organs, and only differ depending on diet. Like how hyenas can digest hooves, human teeth are built for omnivorous eating, I'd imagine apes have a certain resistence to certain potencies of citrus depending on their fruit intake.

[subterranean]

So Dyr, do you mean that ancient man had less complex systems than ours? I mean for example less complex brain and lung structure?

Is that mean also that we have systems (respiration, digestion, etc) which already evolve?

[Dyrwen]

Well, we're always evolving minimally. If your family are great swimmers more than two generations back, then usually the ability to hold your breath, or even move your muscles in a manner less physically exerting sometimes is created through adaptation.

I'm saying that we had the same general systems though. Our brains were about as complex, they just weren't able to be used as thoroughly since our understanding of the world was lessened. For the most part, you could say they were as creative as we are since all mankind has that natural portion of our minds, but the difference of biological structures was more than likely just more reliance on physical adaptation over time rather than mental. Anything huge though, like loss of hair or walking on two legs, obviously takes a lot more time.

Like how some folks say their good at math because their parents were, but back in the day one might've been good with a bow, rather than a spear because of where one grew up or how one's family hunted. Hard to say, really, but int terms of skeletal structures, we're pretty sure that a primitive mind was just as capable of all we're capable of today. Even the neanderthals had larger brains than homo sapiens (which were chro-magnums (sp)) at the time) until we wiped them out.

Hopefully that answers somewhat of your question.

[Stanislaw]

You see, there is no ultimate proof for or against God. There are minor proofs, but for the most part, athiests ignore them.


Wow. You sound a bit brainwashed. Actually, a lot of people do think of the home as a brainwashing facility and see it as the task of becoming an adult to liberate themselves from the received ideas passed on to them by their parents. One of which might be religious belief.


Sorry, but this is just nonsense. Every action has a consequence - although the idea of heaven is a fantasy of a place where there aren't any and the idea of being forgiven all your sins and going there is a fantasy of the consequences here on earth ultimately not mattering.





Yes. This is why these arguments are so pointless - because the religionists deny the basic terms of argumentation from the outset, stating that through their faith, their going to continue to believe no matter what arguments the rest of us offer. Their faith apparently doesn't extend to faith in the idea of logical argument. And yet they continue to argue.
You immediately jump from stating that proof doesn't matter to giving proof. This obstinate clinging to something that doesn't make sense is making you incoherent, or preserving your incoherence.

[Bandini]

There are countless creation myths the world over - but of course the old testament is the only true story. Of course. God just made all the other ones up to...er...to test us! That's it - to test our faith. That and the dinosaur bones. HELLO!

[Bandini]

Scheherazade - "...won't answer a simple 'yes/no' question at times" Chomsky reckons that's one of the problems with American society - the 'for or against mentality' - that gave rise to 'Americanism/UnAmerican activity' and so on.

If we just say 'Yes' or 'No', we often learn nothing. Catma not Dogma! 'Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis - the only way to the truth.

[Scheherazade]

Scheherazade - Won't answer a simple 'yes/no' question at times Chomsky reckons that's one of the problems with American society - the 'for or against mentality' - that gave rise to 'Americanism/UnAmerican activity' and so on. If we just say 'Yes' or 'No', we often learn nothing. Catma not Dogma! 'Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis - the only way to the truth.
Hmm?
.
.

[Molko]

The amount of creationism believers this poll shows scares me, especially seen as though this is a community of intellectuals...

Are you saying that people who believe in creation are stupid? Just curious...

Its just that what you said came across as condescending...

[subterranean]

But why women today still having such a hard time and lots of pain when delivering a baby, same as the ancient days...??? Why isn't changed or evolve?
I'm still wondering though...somehow I can't get the idea..Isn't the evolution proceess involves everything...


Well, we're always evolving minimally. If your family are great swimmers more than two generations back, then usually the ability to hold your breath, or even move your muscles in a manner less physically exerting sometimes is created through adaptation.

I'm saying that we had the same general systems though. Our brains were about as complex, they just weren't able to be used as thoroughly since our understanding of the world was lessened. For the most part, you could say they were as creative as we are since all mankind has that natural portion of our minds, but the difference of biological structures was more than likely just more reliance on physical adaptation over time rather than mental. Anything huge though, like loss of hair or walking on two legs, obviously takes a lot more time.

Like how some folks say their good at math because their parents were, but back in the day one might've been good with a bow, rather than a spear because of where one grew up or how one's family hunted. Hard to say, really, but int terms of skeletal structures, we're pretty sure that a primitive mind was just as capable of all we're capable of today. Even the neanderthals had larger brains than homo sapiens (which were chro-magnums (sp)) at the time) until we wiped them out.

Hopefully that answers somewhat of your question.

[subterranean]

Molko...
Do you see that advertisement in his/her sig? I'm assuming s/he implicitly tried to say " join my forum peeps...you"




Are you saying that people who believe in creation are stupid? Just curious...

Its just that what you said came across as condescending...

[Bandini]

Incka - yea it was satirical. Molko - yes it was condescending. Subterranean - perhaps there is an evolutionary advantage conferred by painful childbirth; it is painful and 'dangerous' so perhaps that is selection. Also, the evolutionary advantages conferred by having a large cranium (and brain) probably override any advantages of pain free child birth. That said, I wouldn't want to go through it myself!

[Bandini]

Schez - it was a bit of an unclear post - had a couple of glasses of wine. What I meant to say was, we get much more from making everything a dichotomy. That said, I do think Creationism is utter nonsense. Ahhhh! meant 'not making everything a dichotomy' - wine again I'm afraid.

[Dyrwen]

But why women today still having such a hard time and lots of pain when delivering a baby, same as the ancient days...??? Why isn't changed or evolve?
I'm still wondering though...somehow I can't get the idea..Isn't the evolution proceess involves everything...
How is a reduction of pain supposed to help in evolution? It's a small hole that pushes out a large object. It has to remain small for a few reasons: 1. So that intercourse can occur with a marginally smaller object that fits, 2. So that if a child is born within, the thing won't just fall out, or possibly, 3. Because without pain in that "region" as childbirth occurs, you'd have less nerve endings down there and sex would therefore be about as exciting as inserting tab A into slot B.

So you would have an option in terms of evolution, if it were at all a choice: Feel pleasure while having sex, anytime, or feel no pain while having a child, maybe once or twice in life. To get right down to it, the whole pain factor, outside of the obvious, might just be that so long as its mildly painful it'll remain an activity that doesn't happen all the time (forcing the population to rise) or perhaps it just creates that great ordeal of pain that the "miracle" of life deserves to have on its platter because of the amount of sheer complexity involved in the activity.

[Libram]

Bandini said, "That said, I do think Creationism is utter nonsense." You should realise that Creationism and Religion are two very different things.

Creationism is not an accepted religious doctrine, it only started out around the time of Darwin's "Origin of the Species" to contradict it. The Church has no problem with evolution...the late Pope said that there was nothing in evolution that went against the idea of God. Creationism is a cult of false "scientists" who twist ideas into a new faith of their own. Creationism is often warring with orthodox Christianity.

[Miss Darcy]

Pshaw.

I think, regarding birth pain, that evolution is not supposed to make things less painful. Evolution - via natural selection - eventually changes things to be more effective. If it were more effective to give birth with less pain involved, then I'm sure that would eventually be the result of evolution...that we would evolve that way. But I don't think less birth pain necessarily is more effective - probably quite the reverse. *Shrugs* That's my two cents, anyway.

I agree with Bandini that this whole Creationism thing gets on my nerves. There would be no such thing as Creationism without science, and I mean real science.

But I can't see how religion can agree with evolution. Look at it this way. Faith means believing in what you're told by a particular book given to you by your parents (for me that's Shakespeare ;)). Being a Christian, I take it, means believing in everything written in the Bible - because the Bible and what is written in it is the essence of Christianity. There would be no Christians without the Bible. It doesn't do to believe in snippets - just in this, or just in that. If you're going to be a Christian, you may as be a whole one.

So in this light, if you're a Christian you should believe that the Earth is flat (Matthew 4:8) and doesn't move (Psalms 104:5), that witches exist (and should be burnt, or so said the priests who were the interpreters for God - well forget that one), that pi=3 (various sources, Kings 7:23), that rabbits chew the cud (Deuteronomy 14:6-7), that slaves are to be treated as property and are less than human (Exodus 21:20-21, Peter 2:18, and others), similarly with women (Ephesians 5:22-24, among others)...that ghosts exist...well if it had been written earlier we'd have some aliens in there as well, sure (not saying there aren't any, just that our image of them is somewhat...well I don't think aliens are the way we imagine them to be)...whew...I didn't mean this list to become so...er...controversial? But honestly, it's all in there. I wanted gentler things, such as belief in magic etc...well believing in God is of course believing in magic...but I digress.

I don't understand why so many women/girls follow Christianity, considering it treats them as inferior to men. Well, sure, so a man/some men/men with communication with some kind of god/or God himself (who is male, by most accounts).......wrote the Bible. It's very obvious. But why agree with it? Why agree with the treatment of wives as "property"? Why must a woman worship her husband as the husband worships God? Why all this "inferiority"? And why go with it?! If you're a guy and think women are inferior...well that's your problem. But if women think themselves inferior...that's seriously sad.

I also don't understand how so many down-to-earth-seeming guys can believe in all that stuff, you know, magic, ghosts, witches, invisible giants who can take a whole lot of something from nothing, who make men out of dust (I'm a little allergic to dust so I hope that won't be a problem), etc., etc., etc. But that's their thing. I obviously can't know how the psyche of a male works, so I'm not going to deal with it. ;)

Is this getting to be a bit too long? If so, my apologies. You know I get carried away about this stuff. Hope I've been respectful for once...:)

Darcy.
(Have you noticed I'm usually Darcy now in religious discussions and usually Miss Darcy everywhere else? Strange.)

[Bandini]

Thank you Libram - I must admit I've never really explored the argument from 'the other side', apart from a paper I wrote on Wittgenstein's Fidesm, in which I argue that...well no time to go into it here. What I'm saying is I don't accept that out of thousands of cosmologies/religions etc., there can be one 'true' God. I know a Christian would just say "Ahhhh! But that's...", because everything is proof of God to a Christian. That said, I have had the odd numinous moment - probably because I was schooled in a Christian society ,so those feelings have terms of reference from this.

[Miss Darcy]

Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein. That name rings a bell. Was he the one who...screwed up his eyes in deep concentration before answering a question? Or was that someone else...

Ditto Bandini on what he (? excuse if not correct...) says about a "true" God. The Christian god is not any more true than all the other gods of different religions of different times (including of course the gods of ancient mythology). Believe what you want to believe, but saying that your own god is better than anybody else's, I think, is rather...well you know what I mean. I have nothing against honest Christianity, honest belief in whatever you do believe...but I don't like it when Christians behave irresponsibly towards members of other religions (or even different sects within their own religion) and, of course, us atheists. Believe what you like, but please don't intrude on the beliefs of others, if they have any...let them also believe what they like.

Atheists don't believe because there is no reason to believe. No reason at all. Or if so, why Christianity, and not any other of the hundreds of religions available? Why? Obviously, Christians are usually people who follow the religion they do simply because it has been passed down to them. Otherwise they have converted due to some "insight" or "revelation" (go into that later). But if you do believe, you should realise that there are contradictions, mistakes, and obscenities in the Bible (excuse me for saying so).

You should realise that we humans are of absolutely no importance to the world. We exist, that's it. There is no particular point in us being here (perhaps to become better human beings, but not a particular point that some god has set down for us). To quote Douglas Adams:

"...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

What a perfect analogy (I got this quote out of Richard Dawkins' "A Devil's Chaplain"). It fits perfectly. Just perfectly. Down to the very last bit...I don't have that much respect for Adams as a novelist (sorry), but I must say, as a scientific thinker, he's rather good. Sometimes he writes very convincingly, though he's not my kind of writer. But I really respect him for that.

Oh, the time!

Darcy.

[Libram]

So in this light, if you're a Christian you should believe that the Earth is flat (Matthew 4:8) and doesn't move (Psalms 104:5), that witches exist (and should be burnt, or so said the priests who were the interpreters for God - well forget that one), that pi=3 (various sources, Kings 7:23), that rabbits chew the cud (Deuteronomy 14:6-7), that slaves are to be treated as property and are less than human (Exodus 21:20-21, Peter 2:18, and others), similarly with women (Ephesians 5:22-24, among others)...that ghosts exist...

That is only if you take the Bible litterally. And how can you know whether or not ghosts exist? They could very well exist. And as to Women...you do realise that they have been treated as inferior for a long time, and that now the situation is changing?

You should realise that many, many scientists believe and find no clash between their faith and their science. The Bible was written many years ago - but does it follow that it must be wrong? People do not change. We are very much as we were when we were mere hunters and gatherers. There are, I believe, many universal truths in the Bible. Else who would follow it?

Besides, who says God didn't make the earth those 4.5 billion years ago, created life, let evolution happen, and then the humans just misinterpreted some of what he said? Interpreting for God is a hard job, you can't always get it right.

If you are a Christian and not a hypocrite then you are a good person. You don't kill, don't lie, are morally upright...as long as you really follow, you cannot come to harm.

[Loki]

Miss Darcy seems to ignore something.

The world must be flat due to the same reason that God must exist. Some insects even have four legs. People are made of ribs and then at the Devil's tempting reproduce. Women are inferior to men in every way, they can be treated as property. Animals should be killed for a man who is invisible and directs us all on a cosmic playground. Children should be tortured for rebelling against parents who have brought them up wrong. Children ought to be sacrificed because the invisible maker orders it. Wars must be fought in the name of our Lord Jesus who is Dead, and is come to put a sword in man's hand (Matthew 10:34-35).

There is someone out there who can hear your every prayer, who knows you, and loves you, and will do anything for you if you are a good little sheep. Any little things you may need, if it's a work promotion or a new puppy dog - you pray for them, and your heavenly father gives them to you. But when it comes to cruelty, to starvation, to agony, to all evil in the world - does he stop it if you pray? If all the Christians in the world prayed for the end of suffering, God would never stop it, even if he could.

If you pray for something for yourself, yeah, it's okay, God can do it for you. But if you pray for something for somebody else, something that will help somebody else who is desperate, something that will perhaps cure somebody else of a disease - no response. God lets them continue in their suffering, or lets them die, which frees them from their anguish. Or actually, no, it doesn't free them from their anguish if they have grown up in an unchristian environment, or perhaps in the gutters, with no one to guide them, with nothing to stop them from revolting against the society that condemns them to such a pitiful existence. For a petty lifetime of immorality God will sentence you to an immortality of torment.

The fact is, there is no need for a Hell, there is quite enough suffering on Earth as it is. Rely on it that evil will be punished, there will always be conscience, there will always be torment to one who has sinned. But in some cases people...seem to suffer without cause. After leading a perfectly peaceful and moral life, many have to die in agony, punished for something they have not done; while all over the world evil rules unchecked. Does it not lead one to think that there might be something more? Not an afterlife, no, but perhaps the Eastern idea of reincarnation is not far off the target. If reincarnation were true at least to some extent, this would make sense. It seems rather strange, this short life, and then to think there is nothing more - you are left to rest without having reached perfection. I realise that many may not agree with this, however I am not trying to make anybody do so, I am only putting the idea forward for some consideration.

Just a few thoughts,

Loki

[Dyrwen]

If you are a Christian and not a hypocrite then you are a good person. You don't kill, don't lie, are morally upright...as long as you really follow, you cannot come to harm.
Therein lies the problem. You say "That is only if you take the Bible litterally." and act like there aren't some Christians that do take it literally. To really follow it, I'd sooner believe someone who followed it literally was really following more of it than someone who interpreted it, since they aren't following it to the T, they're adding in what they feel is right or wrong to it.

Not to mention, your idea about "There are, I believe, many universal truths in the Bible. Else who would follow it?" is a bit haphazard as well, since many religions have "truths" which are just as understandable and reasonable as the Bible, so they might follow them as well since they make sense, too. And believe it or not, some of them don't even have a god directing that set of truths because many things are picked up culturally and made into texts for verifications on cultural norms for others.

Don't get me wrong though, I know what you mean about Christianity changing over time to better adapt to society, but if anything, all that shows is how the book itself wasn't too effective in delivering its point, when (if God were all knowing and all) God could've just had it written proper the first time it was done instead of leaving all these practices in that aren't relevant 2000 years down the road. I'm all for liberal interpretation, but if one is going to do it, at least admit that one becomes a little less Christian with every alteration in the text...

On another idea: Whether God did make the world 4.5 bya and started evolution, or not, isn't so much the point if we can't reasonably deduct that there is a god in the first place. Then again, that's where the beliefs come in and lead us to reason that we all gotta explain the universe somehow and sometimes feeling there is a god doing it instead of natural order that works on its own just makes more sense to some.

Just late night thoughts in regards to what I read, :). And Loki, way to be a devil's advocate, but the mixed messages aren't helping anyone when you don't make a concise point.

[Bandini]

I think that Christian ethics are basically pretty right on. It's basically be tolerant and love one another. Great. The problem is that religion is always used, by some, as an instrument to wield power over others. So we get the exact opposite of what Jesus tried to teach. The other problem is when it is used to restrict people from doing things or encouraging people to behave like sheep - that whole 'flock' thing got to me. Robert Anto Wilson added a caveat to Crowley's (not a great moral teacher IMO!) best known aphorism - "Do as thou wilt - and love - shalt be the whole of the law"

[Loki]

And Loki, way to be a devil's advocate, but the mixed messages aren't helping anyone when you don't make a concise point.

I am aware of that, Dyrwen, I had been planning to expatiate a little but unfortunately I was called away from the computer too soon. I thought I'd edit the post when I had more time...so I reckon I will do so now. :)

[Dyrwen]

I see, sorry for jumping the gun. Your edit made much more sense of the post now, :)

[Loki]

No need to apologise, Dyrwen, jumping guns is my favourite morning exercise. ;)

[Loki]

Is it not strange that all the theists have disappeared somewhere?

-No wonder it's so quiet. It is rather difficult to have an Evolution vs. Creation debate without having anyone around to support Creation.

[baddad]

.......perhaps some people, theists, creationists, the 'believers' , have sensed/or do sense, a disturbance in the force.....perhaps the hush we hear is the bated breath of someone who is witnessing.... 'first-hand' .....the beginning of all that they have struggled to 'see', struggled to believe.....a dreadful silence announcing the beginning of the end......................and we can't see it...............

[Bandini]

Or they're just thinking "****, my beliefs are absolutely ludicrous!" *Braces himself for onslaught of fervent, dogmatic knackers*

[Miss Darcy]

.......perhaps some people, theists, creationists, the 'believers' , have sensed/or do sense, a disturbance in the force.....perhaps the hush we hear is the bated breath of someone who is witnessing.... 'first-hand' .....the beginning of all that they have struggled to 'see', struggled to believe.....a dreadful silence announcing the beginning of the end......................and we can't see it...............

Perhaps. Perhaps they've just decided there's no use arguing any more...maybe they've realised it's hopeless to try to convince us...or maybe they simply don't have any arguments left.

[baddad]

Si, true. But of course all positions on reality may eventually reach such an apex, this is what I am implying, along with the point that all perceptions are arguably only as viable as the next, including the perception that anothers perception is or may be, imprecise. To deny the existence of the reality of another's spiritual or philosophical belief, sheerly from one's own unmet demands for a precise accounting, or concrete proof , seems hubric. Our own existence is not precise. Life is not precise. As for dogmatic knackers, I hope for myself to avoid such an approach to life not matter the strengths of my own beliefs. And while I personallly have no need for the existence of gods I shall not detact from another's approach to life. Me, I'm living to learn and it is all good...............

[Scheherazade]

Or maybe they are not as argumentative as the Evolutionist lot ;)

[Miss Darcy]

I hadn't thought of that one :p

[Molko]

No one has written in this thread for a while.... so anyway I thought Id share this quote from Stephen Hawkings:

"Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it can not answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist? Maybe only God can answer that"

:)

[baddad]

Yes, agreed, a God is a philosophical stance.

[Loki]

Proof of God: he wrote the world bestseller of all time.

Should I elaborate? :D

[Molko]

Yes, please do :D

[Dyrwen]

Like to see that argument hold ground once LotR manages to outsell it. Then where will ya be? heh.

Seriously though.. if popularity meant anything we'd all be Chinese.

[Monica]

Seriously though.. if popularity meant anything we'd all be Chinese.


That was hilarious! :lol:

[Molko]

I thought it was a rather rude generalisation of chinese people...

[Dyrwen]

Well humor be damned, the argument was for popularity equalling truth and who's more populous than people from China?

I suppose I could've said one in four animals is a beatle, but that doesn't relate much to human life..heh.

[baddad]

RE: POST #228 " A quote by Steven Hawkins"

IMHO...... Ya know, I LOVE Steven Hawkins mind, his personality, and his indominatable approach to an existence (his so much more so) full of trials and tribulations. But I have to wonder what (religiously motivated no doubt) reporter finally waggled this answer (actually Hawkins refrains from answering, allowing instead a position of supposition) from Hawkins lips. Hawkins is a physicist. Read his book, " A Brief History of Time".............The gods don't make any mystical appearances in Hawkins book....

[Basil]

Hawkins is a physicist.
Hmmmm, are all physicists automatically nonbelievers?
According to The Celebrity Atheist List (http://www.celebatheists.com/) (which I do not offer as any sort of conclusive "evidence"), Mr. Hawking seems to be something of a deist--he believes in a God, but not a "personal" God. Just because "the Gods" do not make an appearance in one of his books does not really mean anything at all.

[baddad]

Basil, What is a 'personal' God?

*notices Stanislaw Lem on the athiest list.....nods to Stan...*

[Basil]

Basil, What is a 'personal' God?
Knowing nothing about religion, I will tenatively offer this distinction: "personal gods" are very active in the lives of mortals and very concerned about the human race; so much, in fact, that it sends the losers of their little morality contest to a very bad place where they are not allowed to watch The Simpsons or eat Klondike Bars. The belief in an "impersonal" god (I think) presumes that human existence is NOT some sort of holy experiment, and that it is possible a higher power exists, but that life is just incidental and not the basis for a morality play.

[Dyrwen]

I'd say you summed it up well. In another light, a personal god is one that interferes with life and expects certain things from its creations. An impersonal god just made the universe and went on vacation letting whatever happens, happen, without consequence.

Many scientists that happen to still be theists, will usually be deists, because it allows them to get around having to understand how the universe came to be by figuring "Something made it, left it, and we'll never know what it was." Gets around that whole testy religious angle, but leaves in the whole "why are we here" idea.

[niebieskipolak]

Shinto beliefs say that humans were born from dieties.
Christian, Muslim and Jewish beliefs say we were made by God to look like him.
I'm sure others do the same.

[amuse]

p'raps it's not a matter of lying - p'raps it's in the (breadth of) ability to understand god fully.

[Amra]

Muslims do not believe that people look like God or that they resemble Him in any way.

[Dyrwen]

niebies: as Amuse said it isn't about religion lying, but about the point that it's just an individual belief and just because a lot of people hold it doesn't make it true in any absolute sense.

Amra: Isn't that technically because Allah is not to be seen, has no face and no image to be viewed by man?

[Miss Darcy]

Why would religion lie?

It's not so much the lying, more...well, each religion has different beliefs, right? And why should some particular beliefs be more true than others? There's nothing wrong with believing something, even if it's not true; but in trying to push someone into your own beliefs...

*Grins rather sheepishly* or into your own opinions...or perhaps even into the facts...

But what's wrong with facts?
What's wrong with religion?
As long as we keep the line between the two...

[Avalive]

I can't think about this. It would drive me nuts....

[Bongitybongbong]

I'd have to think that there was a little of both invloved...just my opinion.

[Nightshade]

Yup with Amra muslims dont belive we were made tto look like GOd as we dont know what God is suppose to look like all we Know is that we were created in the best possible image.

Drywn: actually its more like God/Allah (Allah basicly means THE GOD) is any shape and every shape and that he can be seen in anything and everything as a power... and Im getting out of my depth here so Id better swim back to the shallow and say yeah HE/she/It (sexless and all) has no face to be viewed by man.
Also whose to say that it is a case of a fact being a fact only because you belive it??

[Loki]

all we Know is that we were created in the best possible image.

It is a very strange thing that man always seems to think he's the best, that he's the ruler - that God created the whole planet for his pleasure after His own (funny sentence, I know :D)....that we're created in God's image (or in the best possible one...who says we're anything better than chimpanzees? We are, after all, in the family of the Great Apes - we're closer to chimpanzees than orangutans are), and consequently, his "pet". I know it's tempting to think God is human(-like), but how do we know he doesn't have a jackal's head if we've never even seen him? And why not suppose that he came down to earth in the form of a sheep and died for our sins at the butcher's hand? Pity we don't believe this, it would save a lot of animals' lives...however it would probably affect the poor butchers in a bad way. ;) In fact, how do we know that God, incidentally, didn't create the fish in his image and that man only evolved? Who knows but that Adam and Eve were really salmon? I think that would diminish our importance a deal - I suppose we'd start worshipping fish. :D


Also whose to say that it is a case of a fact being a fact only because you belive it??

If you're referring to religion, then I don't think anybody ever talked of calling it - or its contents - "fact"...it always seems to be "belief" because there's nothing to prove it. (If there was then I'm sure it would be far more credible for a lot more people; sadly, God seems to not want to prove himself. He seems to want to make it difficult for his followers by making himself obscure and unreachable, cloaked by enigma...)

I know I'm probably "wrong" in all my conclusions about God, etc. but I think I'm not any more wrong than the traditional viewpoint established thousands of years ago. They deified Jesus...there was no Christianity before then. Why not? Why didn't God show himself to the Egyptians, for example? Or is it perhaps just as good to believe in Anubis and Amun-Re and Bastet?

Loki

[Loki]

Shinto beliefs say that humans were born from dieties.

From what I recall, weren't the Shinto deities natural ones? Such as mountains and rivers and trees? Then they would be in a sense correct; we were born from water. We in fact are water. And soil. And stardust. And particles that were created (created themselves) at the beginning of time....

[Nightshade]

It is a very strange thing that man always seems to think he's the best, that he's the ruler - that God created the whole planet for his pleasure after His own (funny sentence, I know )....that we're created in God's image (or in the best possible one...who says we're anything better than chimpanzees?

Sorry that wasnt clear, the belief is that everything GOd created is perfect and the best image for its purpose in life. Ie some is blond because blond is the coulour that best suits them. Flies look they way they do because that is the best and most perfect image for them. etc.
:D

If you're referring to religion, then I don't think anybody ever talked of calling it - or its contents - "fact"...

No I wasnt actually I was referrimng more to the power of belief. In that if you believe somthing is real, true or a fact them it is so if only to you.
Ive had this argument with other people before so before anyone states the obvious flaw I am not saying that if you believe gravity doesne exsist it wont, Just that for most beliefs that are taken for facts (the shape of the earth for instance once it was a fact that it was flat).
So what I am saying is that facts are only a dominant belief in society, a fact is only a fact if most people belive it.

[Loki]

Sorry that wasnt clear, the belief is that everything GOd created is perfect and the best image for its purpose in life. Ie some is blond because blond is the coulour that best suits them. Flies look they way they do because that is the best and most perfect image for them. etc.

Fascinating. :D So does that mean God created every individual...er...pair of individuals...for example the first two flies, the first two blondes, the first two...:D

I still maintain what I said about Jesus being a sheep. He could have come down multiple times already (our sins are fast accumalating) and nobody noticed. Why not?

Have you ever realised that the Bible indicates the Earth to be flat? Of course, you'll say, because that was the belief at that time. I'd perfectly agree with you. It also says there are insects with only four legs (creepy), that we should sacrifice our children to God, that kids should be whipped multiple times (as long as they survive)...all this alongside with God created Adam and Eve, etc. etc. etc. which people really cite as Christianity. I respect those who follow the Bible's better half, though they're obviously not full Christians...but I think that most people don't even read Deutronomy (for good reasons) and therefore can still think that this book was written by God. Otherwise they would be appalled, shocked, horrified. Many Christians deconvert after reading the Bible.


So what I am saying is that facts are only a dominant belief in society, a fact is only a fact if most people belive it.

Would this also mean that, because Christianity is the dominant world religion, the Christian god is a fact more than any other god? That gods still believed in today are any more true than those believed in during the past? I think I know what you're getting at...but that would not be true "fact", it would only be thought of as fact. If I believed I could fly (see Dyrwen's post near the beginning of this thread) would it then make it a fact?

This is becoming a very interesting discussion...